ICAO - Aviation and Climate Change

How aviation is addressing teh REAL concerns about climate change - ICAO Environment Report 2010

It even has a chapter on Adaption that I am sure will get some all hot and bothered......and I'm pretty sure the term "induced cirrus clouds" will become a firm favourite of many over the next short while.

There is, or course, no mention of contrails, nor mention of "spraying" anything.

But there is but lots of real, actual projects for such things as increasing fuel efficiency, operational improvements (better scheduling, better routing of flights, addressing airport congestion), alternative fuels (no mention of barium or aluminium sorry - it's all about biofuels & hydrogen),economic drivers such as emissions trading (which will be additional drivers for the preceeding).

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Very interesting paper. I only read one section of it: Aviations contribution to climat change.

But I find deeply flawed science here. A study was done in Alaska that showed that the overall effect of aviation was a net decrease. This was confirmed after 9/11 where recorded data showed with no airplanes flying led to a net increase of temperature 2.2 degrees. So aircraft decrease the temperature 1-2 degrees. Yet this paper says the opposite, it says aviation lead to an increase in temperature:

The amount of cumulative CO2 emissions that will result in a 2° C temperature increase is relatively well known and quantified: one trillion tonnes of CO2, half of which has already been emitted. The question that remains is “what proportion can aviation have of the half a trillion tonnes of CO2 that can be emitted, before surface temperatures increase beyond 2° C?

One of the authors does acknowledge this, in a backhanded manner:

Aviation climate impacts are due to both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. The non-CO2 emissions include water vapor (H2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides(SOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and black carbon (or soot) particles.

Aviation CO2, H2O and soot emissions contribute directly to climate change with positive radiative forcing (net warming). Whereas, emissions of NOx, SOx, H2O and black carbon aerosols contribute indirectly to climate change.

Notice how he says Co2 increases temperature and No So and H2O "contribute indirectly"... i.e. they actually COOL, yet they do not say this. Nor do they admit anywhere in this paper that aviation leads to a NET COOLING... very interesting.

He goes on and obfuscates further, notice he does not mention the So2 or carbon... which are mentioned throughout the geoengineering research as aerosols they want to use to cool the atmosphere:

In general, there is a better understanding of impacts of GHG emissions that have a direct impact on the climate than emissions that have indirect impacts. For example, while the scientific understanding and modelling of NOx effects have substantially improved over the last few years, there is still uncertainty regarding the exact extent to which NOx emissions from air travel affect climate change through their impact on ozone formation and methane destruction. Similarly, H2O vapor emissions can trigger formation of contrails in sufficiently cold air masses which may persist for hours and can potentially increase cirrus cloudiness. Direct emissions of black carbon and in situ formed aerosols can also serve as cloud condensation nuclei which, along with background aerosols, facilitate the forma- tion of contrails and cirrus clouds. Contrails and induced cirrus clouds reflect solar short-wave radiation and trap outgoing long-wave radiation resulting in the net positive contribution to climate change.

The Alaskan study and the 9/11 study both invalidate his assumption that these contrails lead to warming. He is either not aware or directly misleading. I think the later because he totally leaves out black carbon and So2 data from his explanation. Lying by omission. His paycheck probably comes from toeing the line and/or the paper is edited to toe the line. So he might have included this information and it was edited out. This happens all the time on shows such as the History channel... I've heard people complaining that they have edited things in such ways to say the opposite of their statements.

Either way this paper is proven to be forcing an agenda, skewing data and the discussion and out right lying.

I find it fascinating that So2 and black carbon are admitted to in this paper at all... So those contrails ARE geoengineering, as they have 2 geoengineering aerosols.

Climate-gate continues.

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Very interesting paper. I only read one section of it: Aviations contribution to climat change.

But I find deeply flawed science here. A study was done in Alaska that showed that the overall effect of aviation was a net decrease. This was confirmed after 9/11 where recorded data showed with no airplanes flying led to a net increase of temperature 2.2 degrees. So aircraft decrease the temperature 1-2 degrees.

Is the 9/11 study you refer to this one? www.nature.com...

(with a good follow-up here - journals.ametsoc.org...)

Because if so then you have misinterpreted the rsults.

It did not say that the lack of contrails resulted in a net temperature increase at all. It concluded that there was a net increase in hte difference between daytime and night time temperatures

And it is far from universally accepted that this was the case - eg this paper www.agu.org... (abstract only at that link) postulates that any change in Daily Temperature Range as due to changes in low clouds and not high clouds - low clouds having a much greater effect than high ones.

And both "camps" acknowledge that the actual DTR measured was well within the norms for the period concerned anyway, which makes "simple" chance at least as likely as any other cause.

Yet this paper says the opposite, it says aviation lead to an increase in temperature:

The amount of cumulative CO2 emissions that will result in a 2° C temperature increase is relatively well known and quantified: one trillion tonnes of CO2, half of which has already been emitted. The question that remains is “what proportion can aviation have of the half a trillion tonnes of CO2 that can be emitted, before surface temperatures increase beyond 2° C?

another misinterpretation on your part - this section is only looking at the effect of CO2 in isolation, not the total effect of aircraft.

One of the authors does acknowledge this, in a backhanded manner:

Aviation climate impacts are due to both CO2 and non-CO2 emissions. The non-CO2 emissions include water vapor (H2O), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides(SOx), hydrocarbons (HC), and black carbon (or soot) particles.

Aviation CO2, H2O and soot emissions contribute directly to climate change with positive radiative forcing (net warming). Whereas, emissions of NOx, SOx, H2O and black carbon aerosols contribute indirectly to climate change.

Notice how he says Co2 increases temperature and No So and H2O "contribute indirectly"... i.e. they actually COOL, yet they do not say this. Nor do they admit anywhere in this paper that aviation leads to a NET COOLING... very interesting.

Because it doesn't - you have misinterpreted the science completely.....see also below...

He goes on and obfuscates further, notice he does not mention the So2 or carbon...

Except he does - right there in the bit you quoted.....

.....which are mentioned throughout the geoengineering research as aerosols they want to use to cool the atmosphere:

In general, there is a better understanding of impacts of GHG emissions that have a direct impact on the climate than emissions that have indirect impacts. For example, while the scientific understanding and modelling of NOx effects have substantially improved over the last few years, there is still uncertainty regarding the exact extent to which NOx emissions from air travel affect climate change through their impact on ozone formation and methane destruction. Similarly, H2O vapor emissions can trigger formation of contrails in sufficiently cold air masses which may persist for hours and can potentially increase cirrus cloudiness. Direct emissions of black carbon and in situ formed aerosols can also serve as cloud condensation nuclei which, along with background aerosols, facilitate the forma- tion of contrails and cirrus clouds. Contrails and induced cirrus clouds reflect solar short-wave radiation and trap outgoing long-wave radiation resulting in the net positive contribution to climate change.

and there he is again mentioning carbon.....

The Alaskan study and the 9/11 study both invalidate his assumption that these contrails lead to warming.

And yet this article says that it does lead to warming - and from 2010 is the result of much more recent research than the 9/11 study....which I have already shown is by no means uiversally accepted - news.discovery.com...

He is either not aware or directly misleading.

Or he has access to better information than you - which is something I think highly likely since he's actually studying teh situation in depth and not "once-over-lightly" as you have done.

I editied out the rest of your baseless slander.

I find it fascinating that So2 and black carbon are admitted to in this paper at all... So those contrails ARE geoengineering, as they have 2 geoengineering aerosols.

Well DUH! That's what "debunkers" have been saying ever since the chemtrail conspiracy started!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


You are right, he does mention carbon but omits So2.

The whole basis of the paper is Co2 causes global warming. This is totally unproven, but often quoted. All the planets are warming, there is something going on we do not understand.

But as to the rest... here let me answer it in one sentence:
Geoengineering IIe: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges

clouds as a whole tend to cool the planet more than they warm it.

And no the general debunker line is the same one on that paper... if your view is different that is refreshing.

The 9/11 info is referenced by this aerospace engineer here:

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

You are right, he does mention carbon but omits So2.

The whole basis of the paper is Co2 causes global warming. This is totally unproven, but often quoted. All the planets are warming, there is something going on we do not understand.

But as to the rest... here let me answer it in one sentence:
Geoengineering IIe: The Scientific Basis and Engineering Challenges

clouds as a whole tend to cool the planet more than they warm it.

so you cannot take that statement and apply it jsut to 1 type of cloud - it refers to eth general case - not just cirrus or induced cirrus on its own.

And no the general debunker line is the same one on that paper...

I don't know what hhtat means.

The 9/11 info is referenced by this aerospace engineer here:

AFAIK the one I linked to is the only study that was done so it probably is - I have seen the video before & have the report but can't be bothered checking since Belfort is poor science anyway - I've made my thoughts on them clear at

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and in more depth at www.abovetopsecret.com...