Oy! If there was ever a poster child for “correlation does not equal causation” this is it.
I have no doubt that when we have ENSO events, there are increased winds, resulting in faster flights, but to claim this extends to global scale AGW, especially since they are only using one region of flight path, is preposterous. I wonder if the correlation will hold if they look at say, New York to London, D.C. to London, and Miami to London? And further, what about the albedo effect of contrails from jet exhaust, wouldn’t that count as a negative feedback due to increased solar radiation reflection, possibly negating any GHG forcing contribution? See the photo below.

This paper from this grad student Hannah Barkley is the worst kind of science (just reading her bio sounds like she’s already made up her mind, science be damned), where oceanography students see themselves as meteorologists, and then extend that to seeing themselves climatologists, without looking at the entire picture of what effects jet travel has on the atmosphere.
Air travel and climate: A potential new feedback?
Global air travel contributes around 3.5 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions behind/driving anthropogenic climate change, according to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But what impact does a warming planet have on air travel and how might that, in turn, affect the rate of warming itself?
A new study by researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and University of Wisconsin Madison found a connection between climate and airline flight times, suggesting a feedback loop could exist between the carbon emissions of airplanes and our changing climate. The study was published in this week’s Nature Climate Change.
“Upper level wind circulation patterns are the major factor in influencing flight times,” says lead author Kris Karnauskas, an associate scientist in WHOI’s Geology and Geophysics Department. “Longer flight times mean increased fuel consumption by airliners. The consequent additional input of CO2 into the atmosphere can feed back and amplify emerging changes in atmospheric circulation.”
The study began when co-author Hannah Barkley, a doctoral student in the MIT-WHOI Joint Program in Oceanography, asked Karnauskas a deceptively simple question. Barkley had noticed a direct flight she took from Honolulu back to the east coast–a route she has flown many times as field scientist–took far less time than expected, and she asked Karnauskas why that might be.
“The first thing that came to mind was, what did the flight-level winds look like that day,” Karnauskas says.
They quickly queried a database of the winds on a NOAA website, selecting for the altitude jets fly at and plugging in the date of Barkley’s flight, and saw that the jet stream that day was extra fast.
“There was just a big swath of extra-fast westerly winds stretching from Honolulu, Hawaii, to Newark,” says Karnauskas. “It was just serendipitous, as if she was part of some kind of golden mileage club where the atmosphere just opens up for you.”
The finding piqued their curiosity about just how unusual Barkley’s experience was, and the simple question led to a study of decades worth of data on flights between Honolulu and the North American West Coast (Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle) by four different air carriers.
Through a database maintained by the Department of Transportation they were able to download departure and arrival data by each airline and the routes traveled–for every single flight that has occurred over the past 20 years. Because the upper level winds blow from west to east, the eastbound leg of a roundtrip flight is generally faster than the westbound leg. After quality controlling the data, Karnauskas plotted the differences in flight times for eastbound and westbound flights and noticed that regardless of the airline carrier, the difference for all the carriers looked the same, over the past 20 years.

Overview map and flight-time variability. a, Airline routes between HNL and LAX, SFO and SEA International Airports superimposed on the annual mean 300-mb zonal wind field (NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis, 1995–2013). The zonal wind field is contoured every 2.5 m s−1. b, Time series of ΔT
“Whatever was causing these flights to change their duration, was the exact same thing, and it wasn’t part of the airline’s decision-making process,” Karnauskas says. The hypothesis was born that climate variability (not just day-to-day weather) determines flight times.
He began digging into massive volumes of atmospheric data to assemble a “composite” snapshot of what the atmosphere looks like on days where the difference in flight times is large, versus small. When he overlaid the plots of the airlines’s differences in flight times with graphs of wind variability at climatic time scales, Karnauskas says he “was pretty blown away.” The plots were virtually identical.
Even after smoothing out the seasonal differences (the jet stream is always a little stronger in winter and weaker in summer), leaving him with the year-to-year variability, the match held up almost perfectly. Flight-level wind speed explained 91 percent of the year-to-year variance. The result also pointed toward the influence of El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – a phenomenon Karnauskas has studied extensively.
As the temperature of the equatorial Pacific Ocean rises and falls, like a pebble in a pond, atmospheric waves are set off toward the higher latitudes of both hemispheres, where they change circulation patterns.
“I came into this study, thinking this is going to be a weird junket that is totally unrelated to anything I do, but it really led me back to El Niño, which is what I do.”
Karnauskas found that just by looking at the state of the tropical Pacific Ocean, he could predict what the airlines’ ΔT had been. For this so-called hindcast, “we’re talking about anomalies happening down at the equator that are affecting the atmosphere in such a spatially broad way, that it’s probably influencing flights all around the world.”
Their analysis also determined that the difference in flight times between eastbound and westbound flights on any given route didn’t cancel each other out; rather there was a residual. In other words, when an eastbound flight became 10 minutes shorter, the corresponding westbound flight became 11 minutes longer.
According to Karnauskas, it took some “obsessive drilling into the data to find that residual, and at face value it seems very minor.” The net additional flying time for a pair of eastbound and westbound flights between, for example, Honolulu and LA is only a couple minutes for every 10 mph speedup of the prevailing wind. But, he says, “the wind really fluctuates by about 40 mph, so multiply those couple of minutes by each flight per day, by each carrier, by each route, and that residual adds up quickly. We’re talking millions of dollars in changes in fuel costs.”
Once the researchers had proven that the atmospheric circulation affects how long planes are in the air, they began to wonder about the impact climate change would have on the airline industry.
According to the study, there are approximately 30,000 commercial flights per day in the U.S. If the total round-trip flying time changed by one minute, commercial jets would be in the air approximately 300,000 hours longer per year. This translates to approximately 1 billion additional gallons of jet fuel, which is approximately $3 billion in fuel cost, and 10 billion kilograms of CO2 emitted, per year.
“We already know that as you add CO2 to the atmosphere and the global mean temperature rises, the wind circulation changes as well–and in less obvious ways,” says Karnauskas.
Based on what they had learned about the airlines’ residual flight times, the researchers explored how climate models predict the atmospheric circulation to change and to make some estimates of how much more CO2 will be emitted by the airline industry in the face of those changes. Currently, global climate models to not incorporate inputs from air travel, so this potential feedback is missing from our state-of-the art models.
Karnauskas believes this information could be useful for the airline industry to more efficiently plan for future fuel costs, reallocate fuel resources, refine the predicted flight durations for their customers, and better manage all the inconveniences and manpower related to flight delays.
While this study focuses on a very small subset of the total global airline traffic, Karnauskas has plans to expand this study to include all US and European flights – a massive undertaking. To work with such large datasets, Karnauskas has been granted access to Azure, a powerful cluster of networked computers operated by Microsoft, under a special research grant jointly offered between Microsoft Research and the White House Climate Data Initiative.
In reflecting on the findings of this project and the simple question Barkley had initially asked, Karnauskas says one of the biggest surprises is that the airline industry doesn’t seem to be aware of the flight time patterns.
“The airline industry keeps a close eye on the day-to-day weather patterns, but they don’t seem to be concerned with cycles occurring over a year or longer,” he says. “They never say, ‘Dear customer, there’s an El Niño brewing, so we’ve lengthened your estimated flight duration by 30 minutes.’ I’ve never seen that.”
###
As is typical with many of these shonky papers, they don’t provide a link to it in the press release, lest anyone read it for themselves and see how ridiculous the press release claim is. So I sought it out myself.
Coupling between air travel and climate
Kristopher B. Karnauskas, Jeffrey P. Donnelly, Hannah C. Barkley & Jonathan E. Martin
Nature Climate Change (2015) doi:10.1038/nclimate2715
The airline industry closely monitors the midlatitude jet stream for short-term planning of flight paths and arrival times. In addition to passenger safety and on-time metrics, this is due to the acute sensitivity of airline profits to fuel cost. US carriers spent US$47 billion on jet fuel in 2011, compared with a total industry operating revenue of US$192 billion. Beyond the timescale of synoptic weather, the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Arctic Oscillation (AO) and other modes of variability modulate the strength and position of the Aleutian low and Pacific high on interannual timescales, which influence the tendency of the exit region of the midlatitude Pacific jet stream to extend, retract and meander poleward and equatorward1, 2, 3. The impact of global aviation on climate change has been studied for decades owing to the radiative forcing of emitted greenhouse gases, contrails and other effects4, 5. The impact of climate variability on air travel, however, has only recently come into focus, primarily in terms of turbulence6, 7. Shifting attention to flight durations, here we show that 88% of the interannual variance in domestic flight times between Hawaii and the continental US is explained by a linear combination of ENSO and the AO. Further, we extend our analysis to CMIP5 model projections to explore potential feedbacks between anthropogenic climate change and air travel.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oops, better cancel those flights to Paris this December…
I expect President Obama to set an example and travel to France by clipper ship.
A clipper could cut his carbon footprint! (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk)
Sell Air Force One for a start, to send out the right message to the rest of us!
Barkley tmay only be a grad student , but they have clearly already learnt’ what it takes to be a ‘success’ in climate ‘science’ and it is certainly is not good science. So sadly they may go far .
So, Is Barkley barking mad or is the published results just a pile of WHOI
This seems consistent with most of the other nonsense one reads today from the climate alarmist crowd, but from individuals who should know better.
Flight times are impacted by wind speed? This is news?
I took a flight from Philadelphia to L.A. in the 60’s that arrived 45 minutes early. At the time, it was a passenger flight record. We were told the jet stream was slow that day, and the pilot decided to take advantage of it, pedal-to-the-metal all the way.
Yes, of course the air lines would spot a cycle a mile off – if it were important. The air lines certainly know the value of day-to-day wind information. I flew from Singapore to Auckland once, and our pilot came on saying that he would not go directly to Auckland but planned to make a detour round Ceduna in South Australia to take advantage of a faster wind there – to save 20 minutes or so! I found it so exhilarating that our pilot was sitting there eyeing the wind patterns just like skippers of the sailing ships of old. Was Barkley re-inventing the wheel? Or exactly what was the import of her research?
Nearly every time I get into an airplane, part of the Captain’s welcoming message includes the influence of the current winds on our ETA. I am sure that the first time the Wright Brothers were able to follow a course upwind and then downwind, they noticed a difference in the duration. These “researchers” spent a bundle of bucks to “discover” something that everyone connected with aviation probably either knows or suspects.
Funny you should mention the Wright Brothers, of course the Wright Brothers knew about the difference in airspeed and groundspeed long before their first flight, (they were not stupid), but the Wrights made a fundamental mistake when they choose Kitty Hawk. They wanted to make their flight somewhere that usually had about 15 mph winds. They found out that Kitty Hawk had average winds of about 15 mph.
The fundamental mistake that they made is the same one that many climate alarmists still make these days. They forgot that average winds of 15 mph could mean that one day the winds are 30 mph and the next day zero mph. They suffered through many days with too little wind, and many days with too much wind. Climate alarmist today still seem not to be able to understand what an average temperature means.
It took a college student to discover east bound flights travel faster than west bound flights? Anyone who has flown as much as once a year knows the jet stream travels from west to east and is the reason why east bound flights can often make up time and arive ahead of schedule while those travelinging the opposite diection fight head winds and seldom arrive early. 40 years of such travel taughtme that Boston to Dublin takes 5 hours while the return takes 6. Nice to know our student recognized what all of us have known for decades. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say much for her education that she makes such a leap to climate change.
“Unfortunately, it doesn’t say much for her education that she makes such a leap to climate change.”
Yes it does! 🙂
+1
She probably got her diploma from Universal Class.
Those lines are Unicorn farts. Now we have proof. Down with the unicorns.
I apologize to Kris Karnauskas, the sun, moon, and stars and anyone and anything else, but I can’t help myself after trying to pronounce Kris’ name in my head.
.
Karnauskas; isn’t that what people from Brooklyn call themselves when they move to Nebraska?
.
.
Can’t say how it’s really pronounced, but that’s how I make it out to be.
I was expecting a dissertation on the effects of CO2 on the amount of extra fuel needed to overcome the reduced O2 in the atmosphere. Definitely a a positive feedback in effect.
Hell, I was expecting a dissertation!
Just so long as it wasn’t a Spanish dissertation !!
Once the researchers had proven that the atmospheric circulation affects how long planes are in the air …
I think that the “Aha” for the author was that the reduction in travel time eastbound is slightly less than the increase in travel time westbound. This doesn’t require research, just a little math.
500 miles at 550 mph takes 54.5 minutes. 500 miles at 450 mph takes 66.7 minutes.
What Hannah Barkley didn’t figure is that eastbound flights will fly at altitudes and routes that maximize the effect while westbound flights operate at altitudes and routes that minimize the effect. And on occasion, operators will throttle back a little when eastbound to save even more fuel.
The east-west routes across the North Atlantic consist of a series of one-way parallel “tracks,” as we call them, made up of sequential points of latitude and longitude. Flights along the same track are sequenced by time, one behind the other. Or, they are stacked vertically, with a minimum of 1,000 feet between each plane.
[ … ]
The tracks go west-to-east in the evening, when the vast majority of planes depart North America for Europe, and east-to-west in the mornings and afternoons, when most flights are headed the other way. [ … ] The locations of the tracks are different every day, varying with weather and winds aloft. Track “A” on Tuesday might consist of a totally different string of latitude/longitude fixes than Wednesday’s track “A.”
http://www.askthepilot.com/questions-2/
I wondered if they considered the rotation of the Earth during the flight time?
You hit on a lot of it. Something that popped into my head was that they say in cars we waste more fuel going 65 mph than 55 mph, so even thugh it takes us longer to get somewhere at 55 mph we used less fuel than speedy Gonzalez going 80 mph. So how an airplane takes it’s route avoiding the strongest head winds is probably more important for fuel consumption than how long the plane was in the air.
Jared
Quite: The author/researcher makes an assumption that the amount of time in the air directly equates to fuel burn. As you point out an economic cruise will take longer and this applies to all planes with the exception of Concorde. So statements like the following are meaningless:
“…commercial jets would be in the air approximately 300,000 hours longer per year. This translates to approximately 1 billion additional gallons of jet fuel, which is approximately $3 billion in fuel cost, and 10 billion kilograms of CO2 emitted, per year.”
Jared, I totally agree.
Where are the “trend” lines? We know that jet streams are affected by the large eddies such as the Aleutian Low and the heat gradient from the equator to the poles. But the tiny little graphs in the article provided look pretty flat and meaningless.
Oh wait. They are going to put things into a model. THEN we’ll get trends!!!
“Further, we extend our analysis to CMIP5 model projections to explore potential feedbacks between anthropogenic climate change and air travel.”
Has any warmist ever acknowledged a NEGATIVE feedback to CO2 warming??
Empirical measurements suggest there are some, since there’s been no recent warming correlated to the steady rise in CO2. (18.5 years)
El Niño areas are in the Central Pacific, better stop those direct flights from Tokyo to Tierra del Fuego…
Coupled to those flights to and from the Kapingamarangi atoll…
Air time is connected to Jet stream/wind behavior which is teleconnected to El Nino and La Nina oscillations. Which was just another “duh” moment the above doctoral genuis uncovered.
I don’t understand the beef with this paper. Stronger winds affect flight time. If airlines understood the effects of El Nino on upper-level winds, they could produce more accurate arrival times. That’s what the paper seems to be saying. Very interesting work.
The title of this post implies something completely different from what is contained in the paper.
“I don’t understand the beef with this paper. Stronger winds affect flight time. If airlines understood the effects of El Nino on upper-level winds, they could produce more accurate arrival times. That’s what the paper seems to be saying. Very interesting work.”
Yup !!
That IS the point of the paper.
No it wasn’t. The point was to finger how anthropogenic CO2 will wreck air travel unless a committee is formed to reduce fuel inefficiencies and what not, plus to suggest the need for a lot more money to research this dastardly wicked problem that the airlines no nothing about. sarc off
Come on Steven, you are intelligent enough to see a crap paper not worth a dissertation.
Thanks, Pam.
Gums sends…
I thought it was more for getting some additional regulation for the airlines.
One more data collection hoop for the industry to navigate through.
This could be new arm for the octopus called US EPA.
Winds do affect flight time, but other considerations apply.
Pilots do throttle back with a big tailwind. Saves gas, and no sense arriving too early and sitting on the ramp waiting for a gate that’s still occupied.
On a headwind-tailwind round trip, the greater the wind, the greater the total trip time. (That was the principle underlying the Michelson-Morley experiment, which led to the theory of relativity.)
Companies have been fine-pencilling wind effects since forever. How much attention is paid to fuel burn over other considerations depends on fuel price. Other factors are seasonal weather patterns and hourly running cost of the aircraft, which includes maintenance scheduled by total flight hours. It all goes into the mix along with a heavy dose of past experience for the green eyeshade people to balance, and that’s where you get the scheduled flight times that the pilots try to meet.
Nope.
Sorry, kind of, about that “Nope” reply Mosh, But I thought you would like stupid one word responses,since you are so good at them.
Thinking that an understanding of El Nino on upper level winds could help airlines make better flight plans is so stupid it isn’t even wrong. It is just plain stupid.
Every day pilots get winds aloft forecasts these forecasts are confirmed or disproven by pilots who have flown the same or similar routes earlier. The forecasts are updated hourly. It matter not if the change in wind speed or direction is due to El Nino,The Polar vortex, or God Sneezing. The reports by pilots will either verify the forecast or not.
Steve M, what part of
“Once the researchers had proven that the atmospheric circulation affects how long planes are in the air, they began to wonder about the impact climate change would have on the airline industry.
According to the study, there are approximately 30,000 commercial flights per day in the U.S. If the total round-trip flying time changed by one minute, commercial jets would be in the air approximately 300,000 hours longer per year. This translates to approximately 1 billion additional gallons of jet fuel, which is approximately $3 billion in fuel cost, and 10 billion kilograms of CO2 emitted, per year.”
====================================================
did you fail to read?
“Come on Steven, you are intelligent enough ”
roflmao !!!!
David A July 13, 2015 at 8:01 pm
“Once the researchers had proven that the atmospheric circulation affects how long planes are in the air, they began to wonder about the impact climate change would have on the airline industry.
….. 300,000 hours longer per year. This translates to approximately 1 billion additional gallons of jet fuel, which is approximately $3 billion in fuel cost, and 10 billion kilograms of CO2 emitted, per year.”
No it doesn’t. You cannot make a direct correlation between flight time and fuel burn. This is just lazy thinking and built on an assumption that someone studying the climate can teach fuel burn to someone who flies planes for a living. Making the fuel last is uppermost in a pilots mind and depending on conditions flying slower will burn less fuel so the above assumption is valueless.
The idea of learning something from existing data, of looking at flight times as a kind of wind map was good. The flight time from A to B and then B to A, is the result of many things true but can contain wind information. What wasn’t mentioned is crosswind conditions at altitude would result in something between the two extremes. That is meridional winds, wavy jet stream. These kinds of ideas used by the paper is what should be pursued.
“… but it really led me back to El Niño, which is what I do.”
When all you have is a hammer there can only be one solution.
I think it unfair to blame Hannah Barkley for this waste of journal space. She is neither the lead author not the corresponding author. If anyone deserves the brunt of your scorn, it is Kris Karnauskas, followed by the other two co-authors (both of whom are likely senior to Barkley), not to mention the journal editor and reviewers. Even if Barkley thought “this is silly”, to say so would have taken more nerve and confidence than most grad students can muster.
This is not new. We know the general state of the ENSO affects the global atmospheric angular momentum (the drag on Earth’s rotation caused by the winds, in other words the strength of the winds) and even the length of an average Earth day.
During an El Nino, the winds slow down (the east-to-west Trade Winds in the tropics slow down and the west-to-east mid-latitude and high latitude winds slow down).
Its actually a small impact. The Earth day gets milliseconds longer in an El Nino
Right now Global Atmospheric Angular Momentum has increased sharply as a result of the El Nino. (Relative GLAAM over the last year).
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/reanalysis/aam_seascyc/glaam.sig.seascyc.png
Considering that Nature Climate Change publishes at least one paper that gets mocked every edition, why does anyone submit their papers to it?
It is a preferred venue for high-mockability climate papers.
Didn’t sailors know about this a couple of hundred years ago? Is this news to airline companies? It’s obviously news to MIT-Woods Hole.
Sad. WHOI used to produce good scientists.
Since contrails are in the upper troposphere or lower stratosphere, I would suspect that the increase in albedo is more than offset by the increase in blocking of LWIR.
As other people have commented, the claims about “residual” in flight times is a “well, duh”.
Yes, contrails are widely understood to block outgoing LWIR more than broad-spectrum incoming radiation.
I’ve wondered how much recent warming might be explained this way. The timing of increased air travel correlates pretty well with rising temperatures, so I suspect one could rig an empirical study to “find” a strong effect, but is there a good basis to infer how strong the effect actually is?
So, is it reasonable to be a general (lukewarmer) CAGW skeptic but still see a substantial warming effect from rising air traffic?
Feynman warned us. Beware the scientist with a bamboo telescope.
I definitely picked the wrong career. I wish I’d known I could make a handy living writing up papers about attaining a partial ignorance from my previous total ignorance regarding things well known by everyone else.
“10 billion kilograms of CO2 emitted, per year”
What that means all depends on your perspective. To the author, this means positive feedback to dangerous climate change.
To somebody like me, an operational meteorologist that predicts the real world (crop production and energy use) it means no effect on weather/climate and an increase in crop yields.
Not really because its insignificant but if I were to put a spin on it based on reality, that would be the one.
Mike Maguire July 13, 2015 at 12:23 pm
That figure is made on a false assumption.
The authors were on good ground until the last part of their analyses:
So they used failed model outputs from the IPCC to make projections from their historical findings.
That final analysis was an obeisance to the Climate Hustle mafia.
I think I have found the paper. See further down. If it is the paper, it was in “moderation” since 2014, when it was submitted.
This is a very thin paper. The underlying phenomenon is already well known, and the paper doesn’t seem to go much beyond: “Headwinds slow planes; tailwinds speed them up; El Nino makes winds go faster or slower. Airlines don’t seem to care. Global warming.”
You’re better than Coles’ Notes.
+1
It’s a Kafkazaar world.
At least it is humorous or horrifying the way jorgekafkazar or Franz himself write it.
The Onion:
Prague’s Kafka International Named Most Alienating Airport