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
(sarc on) How about hydrogen peroxide powered vehicles? Wasn’t this used in some submarines? (sarc off)
When one assumes that an unproven hypothesis is true and uses it as the premise, the logical conclusions reached are arguably irrefutable. However, logic is a process that does not guarantee that conclusions reached are correct.
Where is the proof that anthropogenic CO2 emissions trap heat that is dangerous to our planet and its biosphere?
Anthony hope all is well for you and your wife? Now my comment on the “robustness” of the article in question BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, man what a load of “CR@P!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#
#
Paddy says:
October 21, 2010 at 10:16 am
“When one assumes that an unproven hypothesis is true and uses it as the premise, the logical conclusions reached are arguably irrefutable. ”
Well said.
Every study like this should begin with the phrase,
“I and only if our theories are correct, then …….”
oops.
That should read
“If and only if our theories are correct, then …….”
“Passenger trains and buses cause four to five times less impact than automobile travel for every mile a passenger travels.
What a coincidence.
Do they know any good train cos (cough CSX cou gh)the taxpayer can subsidize?!**
Do they know any good UNIONS who can run all of our public transportation and shipping for us?!
Do they know any good Public Employees Retirement programs for all of these train and bus operators and maintenance workers we can pay for?!
**The federal government’s RR losses per passenger:
Amtrak $32
Cascades line $32 per passenger
Coast Starlight $100
Sunset Limited $462.11
Enclosed motor scooters, with a side car, are definitely the way to go. In a pinch, we can flip the pedels out and/or just use a good $550 European racing bike. The newly-retired can get a little extra money peddeling the old folks around in Ric-Shaws. Ain’t the future so bright and shiny?
PS: If the DC Mob were serious about getting off foreign oil, don’t you think we’d have the French, Japanese, and Chinese over hear building us some NucPolwer Plants while we all laid bact sipping our MintJullips watching from a nice easychair under a shady Magnolia? Need I say more America? It’s a hoax, nothing but a blooming hoax.
“The findings prove robust despite the scientific uncertainties in understanding the earth’s climate system.”
Never has there been so much bad science celebrated in so few words.
Is this for a virtual world in cyberspace? Maybe a game of Scotland Yard, global warming edition? You have X amount of carbon units to spend before they can track you by heat signature.
lath says:
October 21, 2010 at 11:15 am
Is this for a virtual world in cyberspace? Maybe a game of Scotland Yard, global warming edition? You have X amount of carbon units to spend before they can track you by heat signature.
priceless….that made my day, thanks!
However, on the bright side, the game is based on “robust” data if we base it on this study!
I feel much better now knowing that I didn’t have the report shipped to me by overnight air and driven to my house so I could read it in a timely manner.
Here’s a candidate for climate craziness of the week. It’s from the Guardian.
Could barbecues help fight climate change?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/21/barbecues-climate-change
The comments below the article are all as idiotic as the article itself.
And this is what passes for science?
TRANSLATION: The numbers look good, whether we add 2+3 or 3+2, we keep ending up with 5. As far as the climate is concerned, we haven’t got a clue.
and
TRANSLATION: Hey, you stand behind a running jet engine and tell me that all that hot air isn’t having any effect. So, all those jets flying around in the sky gotta be heating the air some; we just ain’t got a clue as to about how much.
Zeke the Sneak says:
October 21, 2010 at 11:10 am
They world is upside down. Can’t believe that, in the land of free market. Now that you are proudly becoming a “Banana Republic” most probably temperatures will increase accordingly 🙂
Interesting. So in the virtual world of their models, a virtual trip by auto raises the virtual temperature of their virtual world more than the equivalent virtual train or bus trip. Well I for one am totally convinced: The next time I take a virtual trip it will definitely be by virtual bus or train.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll just drive my real car to a real bar and reward my green virtue with a real beer. 🙂
Enneagram says:
October 21, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Now that you are proudly becoming a “Banana Republic” most probably temperatures will increase accordingly 🙂
You are right, I never thought of it that way. Maybe some rich tourists will come here for the warm climate!*
*Warm climate based on models not guaranteed. Some restrictions may apply. See local area for details.
As a result of the crystal clear skies over the USA in the aircraft-free skies in the days following those attacks, the temperature across the USA was increased.
Severian says: October 21, 2010 at 5:07 am
So, driving, or traveling short distances by air like most “common” folk do is bad and harms Mother Earth, but those long, long, transoceanic trips to places like Bali and Copenhagen and Mexico and such for climate conventions is A.O.K. Gotcha, I understand now.
Long trips are the most fuel efficient for aircraft, as mileage in the high, thin air is much better than down low. Back when I worked for a living, I calculated a Boeing 777 on a flight Houston to London, average passenger load, had about the same passenger-miles per gallon as my 21 mpg-city Avalon with two passengers. Most cars I see usually have only one occupant, so I slept well at night.
Farther back, back in my 727 days, the most fuel efficient profile for shorter trips was climb to midpoint, then idle descent glide to landing.
.
Djozar says: October 21, 2010 at 10:03 am
(sarc on) How about hydrogen peroxide powered vehicles? Wasn’t this used in some submarines? (sarc off)
The rocket boosters that launched the V1 buzz bombs in WWII were powered by hydrogen peroxide. The boosters were recovered after launch and reused.
The locomotive in the picture at the top of the post is a famous Pennsylvania RR electric. I’d get up and find the model number in my train books but I can’t. Bete Noir the CAT is on my lap.
Djozar says:
October 21, 2010 at 10:03 am
(sarc on) How about hydrogen peroxide powered vehicles? Wasn’t this used in some submarines? (sarc off)
That’s never going to work. We’re supposed to be going green not blonde.
Another attempt to vilify CO2 without which this planet would be a lifeless lump of rock. If these people spent as much time and money working out a good way to give the whole of the third world potable water and reliable plentiful electric power all would be better off and the planet a better place.
Contact info looks borken:
Laxenburg is not in Australia.
Well, not that one.
Try “Austria”. IDD prefix matches.
Sandy says:
October 21, 2010 at 6:45 am
Sorry about that. I was an engineer in the PC industry from 1975-2000 with the final 7 years at Dell Computer which during my time there attained and probably still has the lowest cost PC production & distribution in the world. Who knew what it would lead to? As a hobby starting in the mid-1990’s I also authored one of the first social networking sites and built one of the first large instances of ad hoc peer-to-peer networking so that my bandwidth cost to keep the network alive was almost inconsequential. It became more than a hobby when during the gold-rush of banner advertising. For a couple of years at the turn of the millenium I was serving up 4 million banner ads each month. They only paid about a tenth of a cent per ad but few million pennies here and a few pennies there eventually adds up into some serious coin. Who knew what it would lead to? I was just earning a living and having fun doing it. Now my wife, who thought I was nuts talking to so many people electronically through text messaging 20 years ago, has a crackberry permanently attached at the wrist and spends more time at it than I ever did. Go figure.
“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. … Passenger trains and buses cause four to five times less impact than automobile travel for every mile a passenger travels.”
So it appears airplanes fall between cars and trains and buses in terms of long-term impact, the “best” being passenger trains and buses. So the tens of thousands of planet-saving people making trips to places like Bali and Copenhagen and Mexico and such for climate conventions should be travelling by passenger train or bus.
Gets my vote!
“The findings prove robust despite the scientific uncertainties in understanding the earth’s climate system.”
Or, “Trust me, I’m a Doctor! OK, I’m NOT a Doctor but I play one on TV! Why yes, I DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Why do you ask?”
This looks like a good place for this. The tips & notes is a bit full, and a long wait.
They’re back!
Green Wing Aerodynamic Side Skirts > Ridge Corporation – Next Generation of Premium Sideliners
http://ridgecorp.com/green-wing-aerodynamic-side-skirts
They tried these 10 years ago, at least something similar, maybe not this exact particular manufacturer. They look great when they’re new, but soon become rag tag torn up junk! They were eventually abandoned. Trailer jockeys and spotters seem to have a knack for crumpling them on humps, docks and curbs. Some steep railroad crossings damage them. Have you ever seen a semi with a 53′ trailer get into a tight spot, or go down the wrong driveway and try to turn around in it? I’ve seen plenty, and they usually emerge with a torn or crumpled up skirting. The mounting brackets are flimsy, because most cash strapped transport companies can’t afford beefy skirts like you see on Fed-Ex trailers, for example. Their trailers are mostly short pup-trailers anyway, so they can get away with them. But even Fed-Ex leaves a sizable gap at the bottom.
I’ve seen several of these things flapping loose while traveling down the interstate at speed limit or above and some of them partially breaking off and flying like a high speed frisbee!
Can you imagine riding along on your Harley Davidson motorcycle and next thing you know a chunk of fiberglass or sheet metal sideliner is sticking in your chest or cut your throat???
Oh, boy! Here we go! I thought they would trash can this idea! Wrong! (see below)
Innovative Fleet Installing 3,500 Sets of Trailer Aero Improvers
http://www.truckinginfo.com/trailer-talk/detail.asp?news_id=71661&news_category_id=115
Not only do these things also appear flimsy sheet metal, but just wait until there are some collisions into these! Especially in tight turns on multiple lane streets and highways. Lawyers will have a field day, I’m afraid. It is Insane!
Also, strong crosswinds make high profile vehicles unstable, now they’ve just made them more of a beast to keep steady.