From the “this is not the looney chemtrails idea” and the “how much of this can be attributed to climate jet-setter Bill McKibben?” department, comes this data.
Guest essay by Don Spencer
The recent “hiatus” in the global temperature record has thrown a dark cloud on carbon dioxide’s position in explaining climate change. Whereas the temperature record has been relatively constant for the last fifteen or so years the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased more-or-less unabated casting doubt over its influence. Climatologists have been scrambling to explain the temperature hiatus as just that, a hiatus or pause, where the greenhouse energy is temporarily stored away in the ocean to [wreak] its vengeance on us at a later time.
But maybe the simpler explanation is that we are backing the wrong gas and water vapor is the really important greenhouse gas, after all it currently accounts for more than 85% of the current greenhouse effect that supports life on this planet. Water vapor is a more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide by virtue of its asymmetric molecular structure that allows more vibration modes hence more opportunities to capture and adsorb radiant energy.
Andrew Dessler and colleagues from Texas A&M University in College Station confirmed that the heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
The trouble is that global water vapor concentration is difficult to measure and even harder to pin on humans. However since WWII humans have been conducting a great atmospheric seeding experiment. Thousands of large flying machines have been circling the earth day and night releasing millions of tons of water vapor into the upper atmosphere. The fuel used is typically kerosene (C12H26); when a molecule of kerosene burns in oxygen we ideally get twelve molecules of carbon dioxide and thirteen molecules of water vapor and a bunch of heat.
To estimate the amount of water vapor and carbon dioxide released we can look at the global aviation fuel usage from 1984-2010 which was obtained from
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=jet-fuel. Note these statistics include both kerosene and naphtha aviation fuels.
We can see the consumption was less than two million barrels/day in 1984 and has risen to about five million barrels/day in 2010. The growth rate since about 2004 has been modest due to significant improvements in airliner efficiency. In the next figure the GISS global temperature has been plotted against the aviation fuel consumption. The correlation is quite good, better in fact than that for carbon dioxide. So if we all stop flying will we save the earth? Maybe, maybe not, as correlation alone does not necessarily imply causality but we do have a viable hypothesis, water vapor is a significant greenhouse gas and we are injecting vast quantities of it into the atmosphere via air travel. The temperature hiatus (if it is a hiatus) is explained by lower consumption and emissions due to more efficient jet engines. If this mechanism were correct and we did stop emitting water vapor then the atmospheric water vapor would soon reach a lower equilibrium and the temperature should fall back.
It is interesting to speculate what might happen if we do back the wrong gas. We shut down our fossil systems; coal-fired power stations, hydrocarbon based transportation and replace these with say renewable or nuclear energy and develop a “green” hydrogen economy producing nothing but “clean” water vapor. We would stop our CO2 emissions but vastly increase our water vapor output. This could actually make the earth warmer so we must make sure we get it right. The right answer is not known, more real science is needed with all hypotheses on the table.
You might also see a correlation between jet fuel consumption and temperature because so many temperature measurements are done at airports.
“The right answer is not known, more real science is needed with all hypotheses on the table.” I agree with that bit, especially in regard to the lunatic schemes of the Warmistas to relegate fossil fuels and advance ‘Green’ energy at great cost and no benefit.
My airconditioner sucks water vapour from the atmosphere, at the cost of the production of a small amount of CO2 and heat. Does the water vapour extraction benefit cancel the CO2 and heat production cost?
😀
Next time you see a liberal on the street holding their silly signs about the dreaded CO2 caused Glo.Bull Warming, ask them what percentage of the atmosphere is made up of CO2.. I have asked approximately 160 liberals and 97% think the answer is 40% ! Nuff said…
“Thousands of large flying machines have been circling the earth day and night releasing millions of tons of water vapor into the upper atmosphere. ”
We are beset by aliens trying to drown us!
We’re doomed!
Oh Great, another ” Conspiracy Theory ” is born !!
The precautionary principle demands that, going forward, we forgo any further use of water.
“…vastly increase our water vapor output”
Wouldn’t a “hydrogen economy” based on nuclear energy cycle 2(H2O) into 2H2 and O2 which would then be converted back into H2O in fuel cells? Wouldn’t evaporation of the exhaust actually provide some cooling effect?
Meanwhile, however, nuclear reactors and the electrical and electronic devices they power would still be warming the globe. And there would still be an issue with high-flying aircraft:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11707135
Perhaps it would be better to wait until the seas rise enough to bypass hydrogen power and use compact nuclear reactors to directly power personal speedboats.
Well, I would at least grant that those who fly are responsible for much of the man-made CO2 emissions. But that’s all I’ll grant, lol. There was a day when everyone had a fire burning at home. I’m sure that created a lot of CO2 emissions as well – in addition to real pollution in the form of smoke.
Not all “carbon emissions” are created equal. Within the carbonophobic Warmist ideology, burning wood is fine, because it is actually just recycling CO2 which is already in our atmosphere. And smoke, or indeed any real environmental consequence is but a pittance of a price to pay in the quest to rid ourselves of the enormous “carbon” ogre.
It’s actually worse than coal when it comes to pollution and CO2. It really is a religion with them and coal is demonic and biomass angelic. http://grist.org/news/whats-worse-than-burning-coal-burning-wood/
As to CO2, it might be worse in the short run, but in the course of decades, it is better. In particular, in Georgia (USA) trees are a crop and the “farmers” grow them because they can make money doing so.
Pine “farmers” here leave pines in the ground 30 years before they harvest them. For each tree harvested in Georgia, 2 are supposed to be planted.
http://www.13wmaz.com/story/news/local/2014/05/19/georgia-forestry-economy/9288953/
“And because of those practices we actually have more trees today than we did 50 years ago,” said Burnett.
If that actually happens, then at the end of 30 years you have 2x the CO2 in living trees than you did in the one cut down and burned. Georgia is the source of lots of lumber and paper made from pines, so we have millions of acres in forest.
Per http://www.gfc.state.ga.us/forest-management/ it is roughly 25 million acres in forest and 92% of that is privately owned.
My understanding is that a lot of that 92% is trees being grown commercially. That means “conservation” of that wood (by recycling of paper or use of different building materials) will actually cause less acres to be managed as commercial forests. Thus in turn, recycling paper actually causes less trees to be needed and thus less trees allowed to grow.
If those trees are harvested for burning in commercial plants, then I expect even more trees will be planted to replace them. Remember, here they are a crop just like corn or wheat. At least in Georgia, if you want more trees to grow then you need to come up with a commercial use for them.
In this area of the country, people recycling paper are actually just reducing the number of trees that are allowed to grow.
I don’t know how that works in rest of the country/world.
“However since WWII humans have been conducting a great atmospheric seeding experiment. Thousands of large flying machines have been circling the earth day and night releasing millions of tons of water vapor into the upper atmosphere. ”
I choked, literally, when I read that in the OP…absolute perfection!
Perhaps the consumption indicates the number of aircraft movements? So the number of aircraft taking off and blasting the temperature sensors at the airport monitoring systems has increased, this affects the global temperature data and hence the correlation between the fuel consumption and global warming which would be more prominent since the increased prosperity since the 1970s with plenty of cheap flight packages.
Interesting hypothesis, with other good evidence to back it up- changes in daily cloud cover depending on insolation and humidity, various ice condensation regimes in the stratosphere, etc.,
The NASA image is another story. 4-5 major airports in southcentral Georgia with flights heading straight north? Half a dozen island pairs within 100 mi or so of the coast with jetports? Four jetports in northern near Gainesvilee Florida with planes flying straight north to the boarder? Smugglers? Not to nitpick, but I am, simply presenting the pic with “jet contrails” as the explanation is misleading.
You might want to take a look at a globe. Pretty much due north from Florida / Georgia is Detroit. Chicago is slightly to the west of that, so more north, north, northwest. Those North/South contrails could easily be planes flying from either of the cities to one of the big airports in Florida. Contrails don’t necessarily end at an airport.
If only the Warmists would stop jet setting across the globe every few days to proclaim that the Earth is in danger we might not be.
Thanks for the comments all good reading. Firstly, carbon dioxide and water vapour are greenhouse gases and fortunately we have them to thank for the 30 deg C contribution they make to our climate. Secondly I wholly agree that climate changes has been happening forever and our sun is probably the main factor. Dr. Nicola Scafetta (Duke University) presented an interesting paper looking at 20 and 60 year natural harmonics in the climate. However their analysis after natural cycles were factored still suggested an rise in temperature following WWII and attributed it to man-made causes. Finally, please don’t confuse the contrails with water vapour – if you can see it it ain’t water vapour. It is true the contrails should increase the global albedo and be a cooling source but there still could be a lot of free water vapour that has not condensed. Due to the sparse atmosphere the half-life of water vapour (before phase change) could be a lot longer than near the surface. Dr. Susan Soloman (NOAA) in 2010 looked at the upper atmosphere water vapour and concluded that the recent lower concentrations could be responsible for the hiatus – not too different than what I’m suggesting here. To reiterate I don’t know the answer it is, it is probably a bunch of things, some natural and some man-made.
Don Spencer,
You refer to NOAA’s Dr. Susan Soloman, who looked at the upper atmosphere water vapour and concluded that the recent lower concentrations could be responsible for the hiatus.
She can’t be correct. Well, I suppose she could be right — if we accept that for almost 20 years now, declining water vapor has exactly matched global warming. Her claim is that global warming would be continuing, except for her presumption that changing humidity has precisely offset AGW, to the point that global T has remained unchanging. That’s absurd.
Sooner or later ‘explanations’ like Dr. Solomon’s get so preposterous and unlikely, that the only reasonable conclusion is that she will “Say Anything”, rather than admit what Occam’s Razor is telling us: AGW is so tiny that it has no observable effect.
This reminds me of the exercise we did in a social science degree on correlation not being cause and effect where we had to find the stupidest correlation. The winner was “aids is caused by driving Toyota landcruisers” where it had near perfect correlation between sales of the vehicles in the area used and the rise in aids in the area.
I havent had the time to read all the comments so maybe someone else mentioned this, but when I read the headline I thought it might mean that, since so many thermometers are now located at airports, then the rise in “Global Temperature” (whatever that might mean) is due to the jet engines heating the thermometers. Therefore the more jet fuel is used, the hotter it gets.
I agree that the title is misleading, because it relates to jet fuel, not jet exhaust, and jets don’t consume water vapor.