From the American Chemical Society, a robust model of planes trains and automobiles heating the Earth. So much for Fahrvergnügen.
Traveling by car increases global temperatures more than by plane, but only in long term
Driving a car increases global temperatures in the long run more than making the same long-distance journey by air according to a new study. However, in the short run travelling by air has a larger adverse climate impact because airplanes strongly affect short-lived warming processes at high altitudes. The study appears in ACS’ Environmental Science & Technology, a semi-weekly journal.
In the study, Jens Borken-Kleefeld and colleagues compare the impacts on global warming of different means of transport. The researchers use, for the first time, a suite of climate chemistry models to consider the climate effects of all long- and short-lived gases, aerosols and cloud effects, not just carbon dioxide, resulting from transport worldwide.
They concluded that in the long run the global temperature increase from a car trip will be on average higher than from a plane journey of the same distance. However, in the first years after the journey, air travel increases global temperatures four times more than car travel. Passenger trains and buses cause four to five times less impact than automobile travel for every mile a passenger travels. The findings prove robust despite the scientific uncertainties in understanding the earth’s climate system.
“As planes fly at high altitudes, their impact on ozone and clouds is disproportionately high, though short lived. Although the exact magnitude is uncertain, the net effect is a strong, short-term, temperature increase,” explains Dr. Jens Borken-Kleefeld, lead author of the study. “Car travel emits more carbon dioxide than air travel per passenger mile. As carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere longer than the other gases, cars have a more harmful impact on climate change in the long term.”
ARTICLE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE “Specific Climate Impact of Passenger and Freight Transport”
DOWNLOAD FULL TEXT ARTICLE http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/es9039693
CONTACT:
Jens Borken-Kleefeld, Ph.D.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Laxenburg, Australia
Phone: 43 (2236) 870-570
Fax: 43 (2236) 870-530
Email: Borken@iiasa.ac.at
Leane Regan, Press Officer
IIASA
Tel: +43 2236 807 316 or Mob: +43 664 443 0368
Email: regan@iiasa.ac.at
This report should be given top priority, they have found a way to control the temperature of the Earth. Not only have they confirmed using cars and planes warm the Earth and for how long. They have found a way to cool the Earth!
We just need to operate more passenger ships! A cruise for everyone!!!
James Sexton says:
October 21, 2010 at 5:07 am
Just can’t quite get myself to read the pdf.
======================================
ditto James
Now I have to get in my plane and run to the grocery, 5 miles away……….
So, if this is true, then the sharp drop-off in air travel immediately after the events of 9/11 should have resulting in a sharp drop in temperatures, since the airplanes were no longer doing their trick of “strongly affect(ing) short-lived warming processes at high altitudes”. I don’t remember hearing about a record cold snap in the winter of ’01…
Obviously we need to ship more goods to offset our other uses. If we ship enough temperatures should go down. Wait …
James Cameron, director of Avatar, is testing energy usage by different means of transport and in various living conditions….. all at his own expense. I expect he’ll issue guidelines, for us, at some future date.
“The researchers use, for the first time, a suite of climate chemistry models…”
“The findings prove robust despite the scientific uncertainties in understanding the earth’s climate system.”
Are there any validations using measurements?
And, I understood from a previous IPCC report that aviation adds Ozone to the atmosphere, which I thought in the upper atmosphere was a good thing. Does that mean if the reduction in CFCs brings about an increase in Ozone this will contribute to Global Warming?
This study does not indicate that there is anything other than petroleum-powered transports, thus this “Bicycle” thing does not exist except as a skeptical fantasy.
To Jens Borken-Kleefeld and colleagues, please let go of the binky(AGW). It’s time to grow up and admit you have no need for the binky. It’s retarding your growth and clouding your ability to think freely. So, come on and let go of the binky, you will feel as if a load has been lifted off your back and blinders have been removed from your eyes.
Sinners! Repent of thy fuleish habits! Give up thy Mustangs(both flying and driving kinds), thy Boeing 707’s! are you listening Travolta?! Kneel at the feet of the Profit! ask Gaia’s forgiveness!
Get on thy donkey cart and sin no more!
-Oh and don’t forget to fill the coffer for indulgences as you leave-
(the Profit needs an overhaul on the Gulfstream…)
Not more models and “robust” results despite the uncertainties! What happened to the scientific methodology?
How do you measure the impact on something that has not been proven to exist?
BUT — They were the most broadly encompassing models ever used. This must mean they are better. We don’t have to verify the models you know. We just have to make them all encompassing.
Massimo Paggliuci tells us that we engineers and scientists who aren’t specialists in global warming can’t have an opinion about the methods used.
As their initial assumption is that COo2 drives the climate, their conclusions are a foregone conclusion. And their conclusions also have to be wrong.
How on Earth can their findings be robust when the factors they are considering are so poorly understood or simply misunderstood?
Why do we waste so much money and time (I put time second as it’s obvious that they put no value on their time, wasting it this way) on computer models that suck beginning with the basic premise?
They also really have no idea what effect plane exhaust will have on ozone. Just as the chemistry of the ozone scare was fabricated, I have little faith in their understanding of the chemistry at that altitude and those temperatures, all under solar irradiation.
Waste, waste, waste. It’s becoming a national pastime in climate science.
Cross country rail in America is the worst.
How to fudge:
Model costs based on seats and not passengers. If they use a train and it holds 300 people, they assume it is full. If they compare an SUV, the assume it has 1 passenger and not 10.
Since trains are very heavy and stop often, discount airlines beat rail all the time. They fly non stop and use their energy going up to cruise speed and altitude.
Your back hopefully everything went ok
Well, something has to be going wrong with the climate. If AGW is true as the warmists suspect, then their immediate concern is not rising seas, but the growth of stupid. Appears to approach HS proportions. I need a multi-year mega-grant. We have to determine whether the rise in stupid is responsible for un-precedented AGW.
The norwegian prime minister says reducing CO2 is extremely important.
At the same time the norwegian sosialism is financed by fossil fuels.
I call it fossil-socialism.
So when asked why they do not reduce oil production he answered that reducing it would be damaging to the sosialist-idea. It would be harmfull to the poorest in society.
There you go.
Either you believe in Global Climate disruption, or you dont. If you believe in it, you should reduce CO2 “pollution”.
My conclusion is that they dont believe in it, but it is a good money-machine for the government.
OT but 2010 arctic ice is looking much more robust than any year since 2007
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
beats 2009 hands down and is resembling 2005-06 so yes ice is on full recovery mode it would seem….
“The findings prove robust despite the scientific uncertainties in understanding the earth’s climate system.”
______________________________________________________
O_o Say what?? There must be a new definition of that hackneyed term, ‘robust’. Why not simply use the more accurate word, ‘gar bahj’?
I find the humor from the folks in the comment sections is hilarious! WUWT is the best site to read for several reasons, one being the intelligent sense of humor of the average contributor.
Below is a quote from I cut and pasted full article .pdf document
…”The combined uncertainty is ±44% in the case of road transport and 1 order of magnitude higher in the case of aviation and shipping. The uncertainty for rail transport is in between these values. Similar uncertainties apply to our impact estimate per passenger-hour and volume-kilometer, as they are based on the same sources. Notwithstanding these significant uncertainties, the qualitative statements below remain robust.”…
Does the 1 order of magnitude mentioned there not mean that there is an error bar og +/- 440% on some of the numbers they use or am mistaken ?
How can any numerical result with a plus or minus error of almost four and a half times the it’s size be claimed as a foundation for a robust conclusion.
To me at least it sounds like “sorry we dont know a s… about what we are talking about , but we will conclude what our sponsors want to hear, (” and we are veee..rry happy to have them spend their pecunia on us “).
But then again maybe am just being unfair, as I did not bother to read further on.
The researchers use, for the first time, a suite of climate chemistry models to consider the climate effects of all long- and short-lived gases, aerosols and cloud effects, not just carbon dioxide, resulting from transport worldwide.
As Dr. Zeus explained, “Holliday Inns now have the only remaining suites safe from the Forbidden Zone. This time we chose Mars Bars over the Hostess Cupcakes.”
Anthony,
My regardas to your wife,
and I hope she is well.
God bless
‘regards’
Apologies for the misspelling.
I am a 2-fingered typist and pressed send before I checked…
O silly me-o
I got as far as “The researchers use, for the first time, a suite of climate chemistry models ……” before I quit.
Nothing following on from this statement would be worth my reading any further as I know it would be a complete waste of my time.