Normal Contrails: Some Sanity [Archive] - Page 3

Boomer Chick

08-31-2005, 05:39 PM

Oops. Sorry. I wasn't aware that I needed permission to "quip in" on my own thread.

Try reading this thread with the real bullshit switched to IGNORE.

There is a link provided with every single article and research literature entry I have submitted to this thread.

The IPCC "conclusion" referred to in that 4-plus-year-old generic form letter from Environment Canada is in fact outdated.

I called you on this, before, and you didn't support yourself. You claim a link is connected to your statement with some link already posted on the board? Well, you'll have to post a link referring to those past links, which may or may not be actual research articles. You obviously are not providing the link I asked and given that you made OR repeated a statement as fact, you need to AGAIN support your statement you regard as fact.

I do not need to find the link for you. It is your job. I challenged your statement and you must support it. You have posted a varied range of articles some opinion and some that pass as actual research. I will not waste my time to support YOUR contention.

Halva, get a clue. I did not attack FS and your interpreting that I attacked her and not her unsubstantiated claim is just your posing as a troublemaker yourself. Leave us alone and let the academic argument occur between us, you little Greek wheel-squeaker!

Now FS, I've asked you for a link to support your statement that aviation emissions's low ranking on the list of greenhouse gas offenders is, according to you and your so-called references, an old and outdated fact.

Prove it now with a link or you remain wrong on your statement. Period, end of story.

This is not a personal attack. It is an academic challenge. I noticed you chickened out on the other academic challenge we began.... so... beware.

My bs monitor is still blinking and your little quip about turning it to "ignore" is only an attempt to distract and avoid your responsibility. I have read your various articles. I have been commenting all along that aviation emissions may in the future rank high, but for now they remain behind the major offenders, energy companies (coal, etc.) and other land based generators of greenhouse gases.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7607

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=168#more-168

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Three articles and discussion papers (above) on GHG forcings, water vapour, and other factors of climate change offer stimulating and provocative reading. Sulphates were discussed a bit, water vapour, and particulates in regard to cooling and warming and of course CO2 was mentioned. Overall, it's a complicated interactive picture. The most simple model were some volcanic eruption studies which, as most know, have a cooling effect.

I'll be waiting for scientific confirmation, FS. ;)

Boomer Chick

08-31-2005, 05:42 PM

No, the east side of a hurricane usually sucks down whatever air mass is up north.
In this case, it was a dry clear air mass from Canada, we got a day of clouds but no rain and just a little breeze. This am it's down in the upper 50's, a nice cool-off.

Glad you're fine, Jay! Thanks for reporting! You must be getting ready for harvest!

We're enjoying a nice cool-down today, too, just lower 70's. Tomorrow we heat up again!

:)

Boomer Chick

08-31-2005, 05:57 PM

What the f**** does this really mean???

It is the mandatory accompaniment to personal attacks.

I am glad that I am able to dispense with it.

Common sense dictates that smilies and words of peace, mean exactly that.

Personal attacks were not launched, academic attacks were. There's a big difference and you, you little Greek busybody, need to attend to your own academic growth and keep your nose out of my business!

Your using the "F" word ups the ante of enflamatory language here, so quit your little tantrums and reread what you wrongly interpretated as a personal attack, OOZO JACK !!!!

foot_soldier

08-31-2005, 11:05 PM

Boomer Chick wrote:
.....Now FS, I've asked you for a link to support your statement that aviation emissions's low ranking on the list of greenhouse gas offenders is, according to you and your so-called references, an old and outdated fact.

Prove it now with a link or you remain wrong on your statement. Period, end of story.

This is not a personal attack. It is an academic challenge. I noticed you chickened out on the other academic challenge we began.... so... beware.....
I answered your question.

Thank you.

halva

08-31-2005, 11:59 PM

No, the east side of a hurricane usually sucks down whatever air mass is up north.
In this case, it was a dry clear air mass from Canada, we got a day of clouds but no rain and just a little breeze. This am it's down in the upper 50's, a nice cool-off.

Finally are these weather control programmes they have ready for legalization supposed to PRODUCE phenomena like Katrina or PREVENT them??

If they are meant to prevent them, why are they failing?

halva

09-01-2005, 12:06 AM

Common sense dictates that smilies and words of peace, mean exactly that.

Personal attacks were not launched, academic attacks were. There's a big difference and you, you little Greek busybody, need to attend to your own academic growth and keep your nose out of my business!

Your using the "F" word ups the ante of enflamatory language here, so quit your little tantrums and reread what you wrongly interpretated as a personal attack, OOZO JACK !!!!

BC you have not responded to a number of constructive remarks I made in the form of 'academic attacks' on your methodology, so I no longer make them, and simply put you in the same category as Reynolds, Yaak, etc., a category you prefer to be in anyway.

Boomer Chick

09-01-2005, 06:00 PM

BC you have not responded to a number of constructive remarks I made in the form of 'academic attacks' on your methodology, so I no longer make them, and simply put you in the same category as Reynolds, Yaak, etc., a category you prefer to be in anyway.

You know what, I must not have seen your keen and scathing responses to my "methodology" . And how would you DEFINE my "methodology?" Your fantasizing has gone beyond the norms of respectable discourse, Wayne.

You just used the "F" word in reference to an innocent and well-meaning closing and I find this a scum-sucking ploy for attention that doesn't deserve any response, except to express contempt.

You say I'm in the "same category" as R and Y according the the law of Halva? And do I even care what you think? I've told you and this board many times that I am only beholden to the truth and to common decency. I am not responsible for your sudden rancor nor your misplaced anger, nor your ridiculous opinions on the social organization and categorization of human beings you concoct.

FS, your ego far outstrips your ability to competently debate. Your view on emissions stands as false and unfounded.

Excellent site with atmospheric green house gases data (Japanese world site):

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg.html

Carbon Dioxide

While all of the major greenhouse gases have both natural and anthropogenic atmospheric sources, the nature of these processes varies widely among them. Carbon dioxide is naturally absorbed and released by the terrestrial biosphere as well as by the oceans. Carbon dioxide is also formed by the burning of wood, coal, oil, and natural gas, and these activities have increased steadily during the last two centuries since the Industrial Revolution. That the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of the CO2 increase is evidenced by the concomitant decreases in the relative abundance of both the stable and radioactive carbon isotopes3 (http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange/3.html#FOOT3) and the decrease in atmospheric oxygen. Continuous high-precision measurements have been made of its atmospheric concentrations only since 1958, and by the year 2000 the concentrations had increased 17% from 315 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 370 ppmv. While the year-to-year increase varies, the average annual increase of 1.5 ppmv/year over the past two decades is slightly greater than during the 1960s and 1970s. A marked seasonal oscillation of carbon dioxide concentration exists, especially in the northern hemisphere because of the extensive draw down of carbon dioxide every spring and summer as the green plants convert carbon dioxide into plant material, and the return in the rest of the year as decomposition exceeds photosynthesis. The seasonal effects are quite different north and south of the equator, with the variation much greater in the northern hemisphere where most of Earth's land surface and its vegetation and soils are found.

The atmospheric CO2 increase over the past few decades is less than the input from human activities because a fraction of the added CO2 is removed by oceanic and terrestrial processes. Until recently, the partitioning of the carbon sink between the land and sea has been highly uncertain, but recent high-precision measurements of the atmospheric oxygen:nitrogen (O2:N2) ratio have provided a crucial constraint: fossil fuel burning and terrestrial uptake processes have different O2:CO2 ratios, whereas the ocean CO2 sink has no significant impact on atmospheric O2. The atmospheric CO2 increase for the 1990s was about half the CO2 emission from fossil fuel combustion, with the oceans and land both serving as important repositories of the excess carbon, i.e., as carbon sinks. Land gains and loses carbon by various processes: some natural-like photosynthesis and decomposition, some connected to land use and land management practices, and some responding to the increases of carbon dioxide or other nutrients necessary for plant growth. These gains or losses dominate the net land exchange of carbon dioxide with the atmosphere, but some riverine loss to oceans is also significant. Most quantifiable, as by forest and soil inventories, are the above- and below-ground carbon losses from land clearing and the gains in storage in trees from forest recovery and management. Changes in the frequency of forest fires, such as from fire suppression policies, and agricultural practices for soil conservation may modify the carbon stored by land. Climate variations, through their effects on plant growth and decomposition of soil detritus, also have large effects on terrestrial carbon fluxes and storage on a year-to-year basis. Land modifications, mainly in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere, may have been a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over much of the last century. However, quantitative estimates have only been possible over the last two decades, when forest clearing had shifted to the tropics. In the 1980s land became a small net sink for carbon, that is, the various processes storing carbon globally exceeded the loss due to tropical deforestation, which by itself was estimated to add 10-40% as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as burning of fossil fuels. In the 1990s the net storage on land became much larger, nearly as large as the ocean uptake. How land contributes, by location and processes, to exchanges of carbon with the atmosphere is still highly uncertain, as is the possibility that the substantial net removal will continue to occur very far into the future.4 (http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange/3.html#FOOT4)

http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange/3.html

Boomer Chick

09-01-2005, 06:03 PM

Methane

Methane is the major component of natural gas and it is also formed and released to the atmosphere by many biologic processes in low oxygen environments, such as those occurring in swamps, near the roots of rice plants, and the stomachs of cows. Such human activities as rice growing, the raising of cattle, coal mining, use of land-fills, and natural-gas handling have increased over the last 50 years, and direct and inadvertent emissions from these activities have been partially responsible for the increase in atmospheric methane. Its atmospheric concentration has been measured globally and continuously for only two decades, and the majority of the methane molecules are of recent biologic origin. The concentrations of methane increased rather smoothly from 1.52 ppmv in 1978 by about 1% per year until about 1990. The rate of increase slowed down to less than that rate during the 1990s, and also became more erratic; current values are around 1.77 ppmv. About two-thirds of the current emissions of methane are released by human activities. There is no definitive scientific basis for choosing among several possible explanations for these variations in the rates of change of global methane concentrations, making it very difficult to predict its future atmospheric concentrations. Both carbon dioxide and methane were trapped long ago in air bubbles preserved in Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. These ice sheets are surviving relics of the series of ice ages that Earth experienced over the past 400,000 years. Concentrations of carbon dioxide extracted from ice cores have typically ranged between 190 ppmv during the ice ages to near 280 ppmv during the warmer "interglacial" periods like the present one that began around 10,000 years ago. Concentrations did not rise much above 280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution. The methane concentrations have also varied during this 400,000 year period, with lowest values of 0.30 ppmv in the coldest times of the ice ages and 0.70 ppmv in the warmest, until a steady rise began about 200 years ago toward the present concentrations. Both carbon dioxide and methane are more abundant in Earth's atmosphere now than at any time during the past 400,000 years.

http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange/3.html

foot_soldier

09-01-2005, 07:30 PM

doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<1123:RVIUDT>2.0.CO;2
Journal of Climate: Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 1123–1134.

Regional Variations in U.S. Diurnal Temperature Range for the 11–14 September 2001 Aircraft Groundings: Evidence of Jet Contrail Influence on Climate

David J. Travis
Department of Geography and Geology, University of Wisconsin—Whitewater, Whitewater, Wisconsin

Andrew M. Carleton
Department of Geography and Environment Institute, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania

Ryan G. Lauritsen
Department of Geography, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois

(Manuscript received November 26, 2002, in final form September 3, 2003)

ABSTRACT

The grounding of all commercial aircraft within U.S. airspace for the 3-day period following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks provides a unique opportunity to study the potential role of jet aircraft contrails in climate.

Contrails are most similar to natural cirrus clouds due to their high altitude and strong ability to efficiently reduce outgoing infrared radiation. However, they typically have a higher albedo than cirrus; thus, they are better at reducing the surface receipt of incoming solar radiation. These contrail characteristics potentially suppress the diurnal temperature range (DTR) when contrail coverage is both widespread and relatively long lasting over a specific region.

During the 11–14 September 2001 grounding period natural clouds and contrails were noticeably absent on high-resolution satellite imagery across the regions that typically receive abundant contrail coverage.

A previous analysis of temperature data for the grounding period reported an anomalous increase in the U.S.-averaged, 3-day DTR value. Here, the spatial variation of the DTR anomalies as well as the separate contributions from the maximum and minimum temperature departures are analyzed.

These analyses are undertaken to better evaluate the role of jet contrail absence and synoptic weather patterns during the grounding period on the DTR anomalies.

It is shown that the largest DTR increases occurred in regions where contrail coverage is typically most prevalent during the fall season (from satellite-based contrail observations for the 1977–79 and 2000–01 periods). These DTR increases occurred even in those areas reporting positive departures of tropospheric humidity, which may reduce DTR, during the grounding period.

Also, there was an asymmetric departure from the normal maximum and minimum temperatures suggesting that daytime temperatures responded more to contrail absence than did nighttime temperatures, which responded more to synoptic conditions.

The application of a statistical model that “retro-predicts” contrail-favored areas (CFAs) on the basis of upper-tropospheric meteorological conditions existing during the grounding period, supports the role of contrail absence in the surface temperature anomalies; especially for the western United States.

Along with previous studies comparing surface climate data at stations beneath major flight paths with those farther away, the regionalization of the DTR anomalies during the September 2001 “control” period implies that contrails have been helping to decrease diurnal temperature range in areas where they are most abundant, at least during the early fall season.

.

Boomer Chick

09-01-2005, 08:44 PM

AEROSOLS

Sulfate and carbon-bearing compounds associated with particles (i.e., carbonaceous aerosols) are two classes of aerosols that impact radiative balances, and therefore influence climate.

Black Carbon (soot)

The study of the role of black carbon in the atmosphere is relatively new. As a result it is characterized poorly as to its composition, emission source strengths, and influence on radiation. Black carbon is an end product of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, the latter resulting from both natural and human-influenced processes. Most of the black carbon is associated with fine particles (radius <0.2 µm) that have global residence times of about one week. These lifetimes are considerably shorter than those of most greenhouse gases, and thus the spatial distribution of black carbon aerosol is highly variable, with the greatest concentrations near the production regions. Because of the scientific uncertainties associated with the sources and composition of carbonaceous aerosols, projections of future impacts on climate are difficult. However, the increased burning of fossil fuels and the increased burning of biomass for land clearing may result in increased black carbon concentration globally.

Sulfate

The precursor to sulfate is sulfur dioxide gas, which has two primary natural sources: emissions from marine biota and volcanic emissions. During periods of low volcanic activity, the primary source of sulfur dioxide in regions downwind from continents is the combustion of sulfur-rich coals; less is contributed by other fossil fuels. In oceanic regions far removed from continental regions, the biologic source should dominate. However, model analyses, accounting for the ubiquitous presence of ships, indicate that even in these remote regions combustion is a major source of the sulfur dioxide. Some of the sulfur dioxide attaches to sea-salt aerosol where it is oxidized to sulfate. The sea salt has a residence time in the atmosphere on the order of hours to days, and it is transported in the lower troposphere. Most sulfate aerosol is associated with small aerosols (radius <1 µm) and is transported in the upper troposphere with an atmospheric lifetime on the order of one week. Recent "clean coal technologies" and the use of low sulfur fossil fuels have resulted in decreasing sulfate concentrations, especially in North America and regions downwind. Future atmospheric concentrations of sulfate aerosols will be determined by the extent of non-clean coal burning techniques, especially in developing nations. </FONT>

http://www.nap.edu/html/climatechange/3.html

halva

09-02-2005, 12:31 AM

You know what, I must not have seen your keen and scathing responses to my "methodology" . And how would you DEFINE my "methodology?"

Identification with the aggressor. I dont' want to talk any more about it. Just do me a favour and dispense with the little smilie peace signs and then you can suck up to Reynolds as much as you like.

Your fantasizing has gone beyond the norms of respectable discourse, Wayne.

You just used the "F" word in reference to an innocent and well-meaning closing and I find this a scum-sucking ploy for attention that doesn't deserve any response, except to express contempt.

Don't respond then. You managed to avoid responding to a number of more thoughtful messages that didn't contain 'f....' words.

Let us please try to stop boring each other. Show a little more self-respect in relation to Reynolds, lay off with the invocations of 'Peace', and I promise I will try to do my homework better. OK?

halva

09-02-2005, 03:32 AM

FS, your ego far outstrips your ability to competently debate. Your view on emissions stands as false and unfounded.

Sorry, I overlooked this. Would you like to elaborate on it?? What is Footsoldier's 'view on emissions' and how is it 'false and unfounded'?

If you focus on this, it might also get us to the heart of your and my disagreement on methodology, without it being necessary for either of us to be insulting and abusive.

Of course I can read what 'view of emissions you are talking about' but the reality is that you are trying to start a pedantic fight with FS on a secondary matter of the relative significance of aircraft emissions, all in reaction to a typically idiotic intervention (on a by no means secondary matter) by Yaak.

I don't think the way that I have been argumentative and aggressive on these threads is more stupid than this. At least when I become aggressive it is in defence of my own agenda, not Yaak's or Reynolds'.

If you have a BS monitor, it de-activates itself whenever any of the debunkers post. Why?

We can't remove them, so what are we to do?

Probably if you want to continue this discussion you will have to talk with me rather than Footsoldier.

jayreynolds

09-02-2005, 05:08 AM

I don't think the way that I have been argumentative and aggressive on these threads is more stupid than this. At least when I become aggressive it is in defence of my own agenda, not Yaak's or Reynolds'
Wayne, you have degenerated to posting hebrew text spams, you have NO arguments left.
You continue to back up Jimbo, who you well know is a pathetic liar, as you have al;ready stated he is delusory and fabricates fantasies.
What the hell do you expect people to think about you when you do these things?
end of story

jayreynolds

09-02-2005, 07:25 AM

I've had enough of this Scott Stevens.

To: Bill Fouch
General Manager, KPVI TV
Pocatello, Idaho

From: Jay Reynolds

Dear Mr. Fouch,
I see your nutcase weatherman is blaming hurricane Katrina on his claim that it was "guided" by "Weather Wars" and intentionally struck the US. What sort of weatherman do you have working for your station? I'd like to know if what Scott Stevens is saying on his website rings true to you, and I expect a reply, please.

He has also posted copyrighted photos on his website of normal contrails ripped off from the airliners.net website without attribution and without permission. The hoax he is participating in says that when people see ordinary contrails, they are actually witnessing jets spraying chemicals as part of a "weather war":

http://www.weatherwars.info/pilotsview.htm

discussion:
http://www.ariannaonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=234408&postcount=5767

"This photo is copyright protected and may not be used in any way without proper permission."
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/718260/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/698544/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/556245/M/

Your guy appears to also be shilling for hustlers selling gold coins. You should recognize what he is doing and consider whether or not you want him using your reputation as part of the "chemtrails" hoax he is promoting. Oh, and he's also predicting earthquakes!

Mr. Fouch, what Scott Stevens is doing is wrong and somebody needs to bring it to his attention.

This what he says on his website:
http://www.weatherwars.info/Katrina.htm

The Tsunami that was Katrina
August 30, 2005
Ivan and Katrina
These are both very Russian sounding names. It has been established that the former Soviet Union (fSU) developed and boasted of weather modification technology during the 1960's and 70's with deployment against the United States coming in 1976 with the audible arrival of the woodpecker grid. These weather operations continue to this day.
I have posted this page FAR sooner than I would like to have. I would like to have had the post mortem of Katrina from the National Hurricane Center to work from as well as a little time/distance from the events of this week so that perspective can be maintained. I will continue to update and add to this page in the days ahead.

This nation has not faced an economic crisis like the one that Katrina will spark in the days and months ahead. But that is one of the reasons Katrina was guided along the path that we all watched. This path has resulted in maximum damage to the energy infrastructure, transportation infrastructure and to the psyche of those that are susceptible to further storms this year and in the years to follow. Oh New Orleans!

I fully expect one more 'event' this year to impact the United States. My gut feeling is that it will be an earthquake >7.7 in magnitude with insured losses to exceed $25 billion. That number should have been less but presently real estate is far overvalued.

Protect your family's wealth with precious metals as the cascading effects from this disaster and from poor government fiscal management, will have just begun to be felt.
My prayers go out to all who need a helping hand in the very difficult times ahead. The amount of social change that this storm has begun to unleash upon the fabric of American society has not yet been grasped by the media, but then what's new!

http://www.cheniere.org/references/maxwell.htm
“Maxwell's” vector equations taught in university are actually Heaviside's truncated equations, and are only a simplified version of what Maxwell originally wrote.
The Maxwell-Heaviside theory of electrodynamics is now well over a century old, and is actually a serious truncation of Maxwell's 1865 theory of 20 equations in 20 unknowns (those are specifically listed in the original published paper in 1865). Because it was “ tainted ” with a higher group symmetry algebra (quaternions), even Maxwell himself came under intense pressure to simplify it, after the publication of the first edition of his famous Treatise in 1873. Consequently, Maxwell was rewriting and greatly “ watering down ” his own Treatise, having finished rewriting and greatly reducing some 80% of it at the time of his death in 1879. The second edition and third edition, therefore, are NOT the original Maxwellian theory, but a very serious truncation.
This weapons platform has been operational since 1963!

The woodpecker grid (Google woodpecker grid) which has weather modification capabilities was turned on July 4th 1976.

29 August 2005 1425Z Katrina makes landfall Monday morning. Many scalar signatures visible as the hurricane rolls over the marshy lowlands of southeastern Louisiana.
August 29, 2005 2225Z 6:25pm Eastern

Katrina is now well inland but still a category one hurricane. Scalar geometry litters the core of this massive tropical storm.

August 28 2005 2310Z Katrina still south of the Mississippi the evening before landfall.

28 August 2005 2310Z A beautiful satellite presentation of the eye while below winds roar at 155mph!

29 August 2005 2310Z A closer view and just five minutes later than the previous image.

26 August 2005 2115Z Off of the West coast of Florida while Katrina undergoes rapid intensification. Many, many odd holes bounded by squares.

27 August 2005 2203Z Intensification continues in the Gulf Saturday afternoon.

29 August 2005 2032Z Late Monday afternoon as Katrina continues her push inland. This is the western portion of the storm displaying many holes used as anchoring points for thunderstorm development.

30 August 2005 1445Z One of the feeder bands on the eastern side of Katrina. What caught my attention was the odd shape of the thunderstorms, but also just how similar in shape the two clusters of storms are.

30 August 2005 2315Z 715pm Eastern A very low sun angle on the remnants of Katrina Tuesday evening reveal the intricate detail to be seen in the clouds that are made visible by the play of shadows across the cloud tops. Note the large diagonal square across southern Indiana with the top of the square being toward the top center frame.

30 August 2005 2330Z Note the diamond/square impression with a large and similarly shaped grouping of storms toward the north and east across southwestern Ohio.
Contrail operations have largely ceased throughout the Western US as the planes have been needed with Katrina and other tropical storms this season. As activity in the tropics winds down expect these aircraft to return to their normal zones of operation.

whitemajikman

09-04-2005, 06:11 PM

jayreynolds

09-04-2005, 09:38 PM

Scott Stevens is going down, whitey.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 12:45 AM

Aviation
Transport 2000.org
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/campaigns/Aviation.htm

Significant growth is forecast in the aviation industry both in terms of passenger travel and movement of air-freight. People and the environment face serious threats from this growth, including noise problems, possible cancer clusters around airports and climate change. Transport 2000 says it's time to manage demand for air travel and make aviation pay for the problems it causes.

Aviation has been almost the forgotten environmental issue. While growth in road traffic has led to considerable awareness of the problems caused, air travel has continued to rocket over the past few decades almost unnoticed and its effects are less well known. A research report published by Transport 2000 - The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment - predicts that by 2015 air travel world-wide could be more than double that in 1995. And if the trend continues, by 2050 passenger-kilometres flown could grow to between five and nine times that in the mid-90s.

Aircraft produce large amounts of toxic emissions that are a threat to human health, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Research in the US has linked VOCs generated by Chicago-Midway Airport to elevated rates of cancer in the vicinity. Heathrow Airport is already one of this country's main producers of VOCs and building the controversial fifth terminal there will make the situation worse.

Aviation also generates levels of noise that pose a serious threat to the health of those who live around airports. The report reveals that World Health Organisation noise limits are regularly exceeded and that one in eight people in the UK are affected by noise pollution from aircraft.

In October 2001 the European court of Human Rights ruled that night flights from Heathrow violated the human rights of local residents by denying them a normal night's sleep. The UK Government has, however, successfully appealed against the decision. The latest ruling sets back attempts to bring aviation to account for its effect on local communities around airports and under flight paths.

And aviation poses a massive threat to the environment. Its projected growth means that by 2050 it is set to become one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions with around 10 per cent of climate change directly attributable to aircraft. On short-haul flights air travel produces around three times as much carbon dioxide per passenger as rail.

While motorists could argue that through various taxes they pay something towards the environmental and social problems they cause, air travellers and airlines most certainly do not. Airlines pay no duty or VAT on aviation fuel and there is no VAT on either air tickets or new aircraft.

Transport 2000 believes that aviation needs to be held responsible for its effects on people and the environment. If air transport continues to soar in the longer term, then people and the environment will pay the price. Campaigners have called for future demand to be managed to reduce the adverse effects as much as possible. They have proposed an environmental charge on air travel based on emissions and the ending of tax exemptions on aviation fuel. The need for more stringent standards on noise and emissions around airports, better monitoring of the effects of air travel and more promotion of the alternatives, such as rail for short-haul flights, are also clear.

Some people say that restricting aviation growth would have serious effects on the economy but The Plane Truth report sheds doubt on this. Professor John Whitelegg, who compiled the report, says this assumption is at best questionable and quite probably flawed, and that limiting aviation traffic might even deliver positive economic benefits..... (continued)

The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment
Transport 2000
www.us-caw.org/planetr.pdf

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 12:46 AM

For Immediate Release
February 22, 2000
Contact: Jim Berard
(202) 225-6260

Oberstar: GAO Study Links Aircraft Emissions to Global Warming

Report says jet exhaust accounts for a "potentially significant and growing" portion of greenhouse gases

WASHINGTON — A new report from the General Accounting Office indicates that commercial jet aviation makes a significant contribution to the problem of global warming. The study further warns that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can be expected to increase as commercial jet travel continues to grow worldwide.

The report was released today by Rep. James L. Oberstar (Minn.), Ranking Democratic Member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The GAO study was done at Oberstar’s request.

In his request, Oberstar pointed out that aviation is the fastest-growing segment of the transportation industry, growing at a rate of some five percent annually, and this has brought with it an increasing concern over aviation’s impact on the environment.

"On the one hand, the industry’s growth has created concerns about noise, air, and water pollution. On the other hand, environmental concerns have increased the time and cost of development and imposed restrictions on flight patterns, airport use, and airport capacity," Oberstar wrote.

The GAO found that, in the United States, aviation emissions accounted for about three percent of the greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to the global warming phenomenon. While this percentage is small in relative terms—other transportation sources contribute 23 percent, and other industrial emissions account for 41 percent—aviation emissions are potentially significant for a number of reasons:

-- Jet aircraft emissions are deposited directly into the upper atmosphere and some of them have a greater warming effect than gases emitted closer to the surface, such as automobile exhaust

-- The primary gas emitted by jet aircraft engines is carbon dioxide, which can survive in the atmosphere up to 100 years.

-- Carbon dioxide combined with other exhaust gases and particulates emitted from jet engines could have two to four times as great an impact on the atmosphere as carbon dioxide emissions alone.

-- The growing demand for jet air service is likely to generate more emissions that cannot be offset by reductions achieved through technological improvements alone.

The report recommended further research into the impact of jet exhaust on the global atmosphere to help guide the development of new aircraft engine technology. It also called upon governments to reduce emissions through improved air traffic control and regulatory and economic incentives.

The report released today is the first in a series of studies on the environmental impact of aviation stemming from Oberstar’s request.

Text of the report (GAO/RCED-00-57) is available on line at www.gao.gov/archive/2000/rc00057.pdf

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 12:49 AM

20 October 2003
EurActiv.com

UK aviation industry recognises need to address aviation's climate change impact

In short:

On 13 October the EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström discussed with the UK aviation industry alternatives as to how to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change.

Background:

Aviation is estimated to contribute around 3.5 per cent to human-induced global warming. And the growing number of flights is likely to exacerbate the problem of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in the coming decades. A study from Cambridge University entitled "Aviation and the global atmosphere" suggests that the impact of aviation on climate change could grow to between 5 and 15 per cent of the total human-induced impact by 2050 (with a mid-range scenario of 6 per cent).

Issues:

On 13 October, the British Airport Association (BAA) organised a seminar to determine the best approach to address the impact of aviation on climate change. Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström, UK aviation minister Tony McNulty, BAA chief executive Mike Clasper, Friends of the Earth senior climate & transport campaigner Roger Higman and British Airways chief economist & head of environment Andrew Sentance focused discussions in particular on the role of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme.

Positions:

Referring to the appropriate instruments which could be implemented within the aviation industry to combat climate change Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström mentioned three instruments:

--- The exemption of taxation on kerosene should be ended. The new Community Directive on energy taxation will allow Member States to tax kerosene on domestic flights and - on the basis of bilateral agreements - intra-EU flights;

--- An 'en route emissions charge' could be introduced. The Commission is currently considering the results of a study on 'en route charges' that could form the basis for a Commission proposal;

--- The EU emissions trading scheme should be applied to aviation. The commission is studying how this could be achieved.

The British Airport Association considers that "the aviation industry cannot grow unless it tackles its global impacts: by making the most of the positive economic, social and cultural benefits of aviation, and by constantly striving to drive down the negative impacts on its local communities and the environment".

Supplemental links here:
http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcm...34-16&type=News

***
An excerpt from Dr. Rita Colwell's December 4, 2002 speech to a planning workshop in Washington, DC:

.....Scale is an important consideration for observing the atmosphere as well—to paraphrase Thoreau, knowing when and where to look. Here we see contrails left by jet aircraft in the sky over Southern California.

When all commercial aircraft were grounded after September 11, 2001, a unique portal opened onto surface temperature. The range in daily temperature on those days without jet flights proved to be the widest in 30 years. The reason: Contrails block sunlight by day and retain heat on the earth by night.....
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/forum/col...techngwkshp.htm

9/23/07 - Note: the above-posted link to Rita Colwell's December 4, 2002 speech is no longer viable. The text of this speech (and a slide presentation file) can now be accessed at the following link:

How Far We Are To Look: A Context for Climate Change Research
Dr. Rita R. Colwell
Director
National Science Foundation
U.S. Climate Change Science Program:
Planning Workshop for Scientists and Stakeholders
Washington, D.C.
December 4, 2002
http://www.nsf.gov/news/speeches/colwell/rc021204climatechngwkshp.htm

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 12:52 AM

Historical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost, and Emissions

Joosung Joseph Lee
B.S., Mechanical Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998

Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and
the Engineering Systems Division
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
and
Master of Science in Technology and Policy
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 2000

2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved

Excerpt:

2.2 Aviation and the Environment Today

Aviation has now become a major mode of transportation and an integral part of the infrastructure of modern society. Currently, aircraft account for more than 10% of world’s passenger miles traveled (Schafer and Victor, 1997b). Aviation directly impacts the global economy in the form of commercial passenger travel, freighter transport, and business travelers, involving the suppliers and operators of aircraft, component manufacturers, fuel suppliers, airports, and air navigation service providers. In 1994, the aviation sector accounted for 24 million jobs globally and financially provided $1,140 billion in annual gross output (IATA, 1997).

Because of its growing influence on the global economy and the wide range of industries involved, the activities of the air transport industry have been directly circumscribed by public interest. Energy use and environmental impact, as represented by air pollution and noise, are two important drivers for today’s aviation sector. Currently, aviation fuel consumption corresponds to 2 to 3% of the total fossil fuels used worldwide, and more than 80% of this is used by civil aviation. In comparison, the entire transportation sector burns 20 to 25% of the total fossil fuels consumed. Thus the aviation sector alone uses 13% of the fossil fuels consumed in transportation, being the second largest transportation sector after road transportation (IPCC, 1996b).

In the future, total aviation fuel consumption is expected to continue to grow due to the rapid growth in air traffic volume. The subsequent increase in aircraft engine emissions has drawn particular attention among the aviation industry, the scientific community, and international governments in light global climate change. Through various forums among global participants, the effort to address these issues concerning growing aviation emissions has recently culminated in the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Atmosphere. In review of this document, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) describes the current status of aviation and global climate as, "Aviation’s effects on the global atmosphere are potentially significant and expected to grow” (GAO, 2000).

Aircraft engines emit a wide range of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The environmental issues concerning these aircraft emissions originally arose from protecting local air quality in the vicinity of airports and have grown to global environmental issues, two of which may bear the direct consequences of aviation. One is climate change, which may alter weather patterns, and, for supersonic aircraft, stratospheric ozone depletion and resultant increase in ultraviolet-B (UV-B) at the earth's surface (IPCC, 1999).

The resultant radiative forcing from these aircraft emissions discharged directly at altitude is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing from the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level. IPCC global modeling estimates show that aircraft were responsible for about 3.5% of the total accumulated anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere in 1992 as shown in Figure 2.1 (IPCC, 1999).

A number of direct and indirect species of aircraft emissions have been identified to affect climate. Carbon dioxide and water directly influence climate by radiative forcing while their indirect influences on climate include the production of [excess] ozone in the troposphere, alteration of the methane lifetime, formation of contrails, and modified cirrus cloudiness. As for the species that have indirect influences on climate, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and water vapor impact climate by modifying the chemical balance in the atmosphere (IPCC, 1999).

The atmospheric sources and sinks of CO2 occur principally at the earth’s surface through exchange between the biosphere and the oceans. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb the infrared radiation from the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. An increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration causes a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. Thus, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is one of the most important factors in climate change.

Water influences climate through its continual cycling between water vapor, clouds, precipitation, and ground water. Both water vapor and clouds have large effects on the radiative balance of climate and directly influence tropospheric chemistry. Water is also important in polar ozone loss though the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. This can directly affect the radiative balance of climate and have a chemical perturbation on stratospheric ozone.

Furthermore, it takes longer for water emissions to disappear in the stratosphere than in the troposphere, so these aircraft water emissions increase the ambient concentration and directly impact the radiative balance and climate. Thus, new concerns have arisen regarding increasing contrails and enhanced cirrus formation. Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show a contrail coverage in 1992 and its estimate in 2050 (IPCC, 1999).

[See .pdf link provided below for a look at Figures 2.2a and 2.2b.]

Nitrogen oxides are present throughout the atmosphere. Their influence is important in the chemistry of both the troposphere and the stratosphere as well as in ozone production and destruction processes.

In the upper troposphere and lowermost stratosphere, NOx emissions from subsonic aircraft tend to increase ozone concentrations. The ozone then acts as a greenhouse gas.

On the other hand, NOx emissions from supersonic aircraft at the higher altitudes tend to deplete ozone.

NOx emissions are also known to contribute to the reduction in the atmospheric lifetime of methane, which is another greenhouse gas (IPCC, 1999).

Particles related to aviation are principally sulfate aerosols and soot particles, which impact the chemical balance of the atmosphere. During operation, aircraft engines emit a mixture of particles and gases (e.g. SO2 - sulfur dioxide) evolving into a variety of particles mainly composed of soot from incomplete combustion and sulfuric acid (H2SO4) from the sulfur in the aviation fuel. These particles then contribute to the seeding of contrails and cirrus clouds, potentially altering the total cloud cover in the upper troposphere. The sulfate aerosol layer in the stratosphere affects stratospheric NOx and hence ozone [depletion] (IPCC, 1999).

Overall, aircraft emissions are unique because they are directly discharged at the high altitudes and may affect the atmosphere in a different way than ground level emissions do. The radiative forcing from aircraft engine emissions is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing due to the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level (IPCC, 1999). END Excerpt.

www.mit.edu/people/jjlee/docs/lee_thesis.pdf

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 12:55 AM

3 December 2003
The Guardian UK

Low flying 'would aid air quality'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/s...1098385,00.html

The environmental havoc wreaked by aviation could be brought under control if aircraft cruised at a lower altitude and flew in straight lines, according to leading scientists.

Just weeks ahead of a likely announcement on new runways from the transport secretary, Alistair Darling, experts suggested the rapid rise in emissions from air transport could be halted if the industry operated more efficiently.

Keith Mans, chief executive of the Royal Aeronautical Society, yesterday claimed pollution could be controlled even if the industry grows at the forecast rate of 3%-5% a year.

"If we invest in technology, invest in operational improvements and look at the problems in a holistic way, there is a good chance we will be able to at least stabilise emissions in the medium term," said Mr Mans.

New research suggests that by flying 6,000ft lower than their present cruising altitude, airlines could cut the damage caused by vapour trails by 47% - although they would burn 6% more fuel.

Vapour emissions are viewed as a big contributor to global warming.

Greener by Design, a group of academics urging the industry to take on board environmental issues, believes that improved air traffic control could cut emissions by a further 10% if planes no longer had to fly "zig-zag" patterns and were able to avoid queuing for take-off and landing slots.

The findings contradict warnings from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution that expansion in air travel is unsustainable.

***
9 July 2003
Aviation Today and Tomorrow
Elmar Uherek - Mainz Institute, Germany
http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/n9.html

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 12:57 AM

12/4/03
BBC News

Fly Lower to Cut Climate Impact
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3288003.stm

Flying aircraft 6,000 feet (1.8 kilometres) below current altitudes could help curb the contribution to climate change made by aircraft.

UK scientists say this would result in a 47% reduction in contrails, the exhaust streams produced by aircraft.

Contrails can evolve into cirrus clouds that may trap terrestrial radiation, driving up global temperatures.

The suggestion comes out of computer modelling at Manchester Metropolitan University and other institutions.

"Climate change is a real, measurable phenomenon," said Manchester's Professor David Lee, an author of the research who was speaking at the Science Media Centre in London.

Cirrus clouds - typically thin and wispy - occur about 20,000 feet (6 km) over the Earth's surface, and above. They are composed of ice crystals that form through the freezing of super-cooled water droplets.

3D simulation

The researchers came to their conclusions by developing a computer simulation model of the total global aircraft traffic. This took account of different flying routes, altitudes, flight frequencies, and aircraft types.

They also used meteorological data to calculate where the aircraft would hit conditions favourable for contrails, or condensation trails. The exhaust clouds form more frequently where there is high atmospheric humidity.

This simulation was then played through a 3D computer grid which revealed the contrail coverage produced by the virtual air traffic.

This can be used to calculate the contrail contribution to the total climate change effect from aviation which is assessed using a measure known as radiative forcing.

This describes how an environmental process affects the energy balance of the Earth and atmosphere.

The team tried several scenarios in which they looked at the effect of flying aircraft 2,000, 4,000 and 6,000 feet below their current levels. Flying aircraft at 6,000 feet below their current altitudes reduced the contrail coverage by 47% in the simulation.

Conventional altitudes for commercial aircraft are between 20,000 (6 km) and 40,000 feet (12 km).

Icy clouds

Although contrails have been observed evolving into cirrus clouds, there are currently no figures on their contribution to the formation of cirrus clouds globally.

Dr Paul DeMott, an atmosphere scientist at Colorado State University, US, was cautious about the factors behind cirrus cloud formation on a worldwide scale.

"I think there is at least some potential impact of aircraft causing more cloudiness, but you have to have the right conditions for cirrus cloud formation," he said.

"I think it's fair to say, we're still not completely certain about the direction or magnitude of cirrus clouds on [climate change]. We need to know more about their distribution in the atmosphere," he added.

The study is a joint project between nine different partners across Europe, including Manchester Metropolitan University, the German Aerospace Centre and the University of Oslo.

The UK Government's white paper on the future of aviation, expected next month, will outline a 30-year strategy for the aircraft industry.

The industry has been looking at options for stabilising emission levels from aircraft in line with projected passenger growth of 3-5% over a similar period.

halva

09-05-2005, 12:57 AM

Scott Stevens is going down, whitey.

All of this is just more evidence that the 'chemmie' vs debunker fight started as an internal disagreement in the US militia-'patriot' milieu and has been projected beyond that milieu much much more than it deserves.

This Reynolds vs WMM domestic infighting doesn't need to be conducted in public, particularly on Footsoldier's thread.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 01:00 AM

3 March 2004
Environmental News Service

Jetting Toward Climate Change
http://www.climateark.org/articles/...sp?linkid=29940

CHICAGO, Illinois, March 3, 2004 (ENS) - Commercial jet aviation has the potential to soon become the number one cause of human caused climate change, according to a professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor.

The study by Dr. Katta Murty cautions that major increases in commercial flights and expansions of airports would not only add to greenhouse gas emissions, but could further harm the protective ozone layer that surrounds the Earth.

Current industry projections predict the world's air transportation industry could triple within two decades.

"It is an important problem to analyze at what altitudes additional releases of greenhouse gases will have maximum impact on global warming," according to Murty.

"This study also points out that the much more rapid melting of polar ice near the North Pole compared to that at the South Pole," she said, "may have been caused by the very large fraction of jet air flights in the world occurring over the northern polar region."

Murty says jet aircraft atmospheric damage is unique in that exhaust emissions from such aircraft are deposited not only in the lower atmosphere but also in the cloud forming troposphere and higher, where resulting contrails are formed and other chemicals remain to interact for decades.

According to Dr. David Travis, professor and chair, Department of Geography and Geology, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, research "has demonstrated that jet contrails have caused substantial increases in the high cloud coverage over the most heavily trafficked regions of the United States and Europe."

Travis says these increases in high clouds have led to suppression of the temperature range causing both daytime cooling and nighttime warming in areas where contrails are most abundant.

"During the three days following September 11th - when no commercial aircraft were flying - the skies across the United States were remarkably clear with a much wider range in temperature between day and night, giving an indication of how the U.S. climate used to be prior to the days of aviation," Travis said.

The findings of these researchers - along with the recently publicized study by consultants to the U.S. military warning of the environmental, social and political impacts of climate change - are more evidence the United States needs to rethink its transportation system, says Jack Saporito of the Alliance of Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare (AReCO).

"Now, more than ever, there is support and urgency to demand a U.S. moratorium on all airport expansion projects currently in the works," Saporito said. "Furthermore, there is a real need for environmental impact reviews to be taken seriously and results stringently enforced."

Originally posted at: http://www.ens-newswire.com/login/i...-09.asp#anchor5

The above-referenced study:

Greenhouse Gas Pollution in the Stratosphere Due to Increasing Airplane Traffic; Effects on the Environment

Katta G. Murty
Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
10 November 2000, revised 26 November 2000
www.areco.org/planetravel.pdf

Insurrectionchemistry

09-05-2005, 02:52 AM

F_S cites:

"A number of direct and indirect species of aircraft emissions have been identified to affect climate. Carbon dioxide and water directly influence climate by radiative forcing while their indirect influences on climate include the production of [excess] ozone in the troposphere, alteration of the methane lifetime, formation of contrails, and modified cirrus cloudiness. As for the species that have indirect influences on climate, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and water vapor impact climate by modifying the chemical balance in the atmosphere (IPCC, 1999)."

===========

Looks like someone just gave the definition for why jet emissions are more properly termed "chemtrails."

When varied nucleating methods are used to modify this complex jet trail chemistry and phase/states, still more reason it should be termed chemtrails, and con-trail becomes the misleading term.

halva

09-05-2005, 08:44 AM

Any suggestions as to what could be done to get these scientists using the terminology you recommend?

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 11:43 AM

F_S writes:

A number of direct and indirect species of aircraft emissions have been identified to affect climate. Carbon dioxide and water directly influence climate by radiative forcing while their indirect influences on climate include the production of [excess] ozone in the troposphere, alteration of the methane lifetime, formation of contrails, and modified cirrus cloudiness. As for the species that have indirect influences on climate, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and water vapor impact climate by modifying the chemical balance in the atmosphere (IPCC, 1999).

===========

Looks like someone just gave the definition for why jet emissions are more properly termed "chemtrails."

When varied nucleating methods are used to modify this complex jet trail chemistry and phase/states, still more reason it should be termed chemtrails, and con-trail becomes the misleading term.
The above-quoted passage regarding aircraft emissions is properly attributed to the scientist from whose publication it is excerpted:

Historical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost, and Emissions

Joosung Joseph Lee
B.S., Mechanical Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998

Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and
the Engineering Systems Division
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
and
Master of Science in Technology and Policy
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 2000

2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved

Excerpt:

2.2 Aviation and the Environment Today

Aviation has now become a major mode of transportation and an integral part of the infrastructure of modern society. Currently, aircraft account for more than 10% of world’s passenger miles traveled (Schafer and Victor, 1997b). Aviation directly impacts the global economy in the form of commercial passenger travel, freighter transport, and business travelers, involving the suppliers and operators of aircraft, component manufacturers, fuel suppliers, airports, and air navigation service providers. In 1994, the aviation sector accounted for 24 million jobs globally and financially provided $1,140 billion in annual gross output (IATA, 1997).

Because of its growing influence on the global economy and the wide range of industries involved, the activities of the air transport industry have been directly circumscribed by public interest. Energy use and environmental impact, as represented by air pollution and noise, are two important drivers for today’s aviation sector. Currently, aviation fuel consumption corresponds to 2 to 3% of the total fossil fuels used worldwide, and more than 80% of this is used by civil aviation. In comparison, the entire transportation sector burns 20 to 25% of the total fossil fuels consumed. Thus the aviation sector alone uses 13% of the fossil fuels consumed in transportation, being the second largest transportation sector after road transportation (IPCC, 1996b).

In the future, total aviation fuel consumption is expected to continue to grow due to the rapid growth in air traffic volume. The subsequent increase in aircraft engine emissions has drawn particular attention among the aviation industry, the scientific community, and international governments in light global climate change. Through various forums among global participants, the effort to address these issues concerning growing aviation emissions has recently culminated in the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Atmosphere. In review of this document, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) describes the current status of aviation and global climate as, "Aviation’s effects on the global atmosphere are potentially significant and expected to grow” (GAO, 2000).

Aircraft engines emit a wide range of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The environmental issues concerning these aircraft emissions originally arose from protecting local air quality in the vicinity of airports and have grown to global environmental issues, two of which may bear the direct consequences of aviation. One is climate change, which may alter weather patterns, and, for supersonic aircraft, stratospheric ozone depletion and resultant increase in ultraviolet-B (UV-B) at the earth's surface (IPCC, 1999).

The resultant radiative forcing from these aircraft emissions discharged directly at altitude is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing from the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level. IPCC global modeling estimates show that aircraft were responsible for about 3.5% of the total accumulated anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere in 1992 as shown in Figure 2.1 (IPCC, 1999).

A number of direct and indirect species of aircraft emissions have been identified to affect climate. Carbon dioxide and water directly influence climate by radiative forcing while their indirect influences on climate include the production of [excess] ozone in the troposphere, alteration of the methane lifetime, formation of contrails, and modified cirrus cloudiness. As for the species that have indirect influences on climate, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and water vapor impact climate by modifying the chemical balance in the atmosphere (IPCC, 1999).

The atmospheric sources and sinks of CO2 occur principally at the earth’s surface through exchange between the biosphere and the oceans. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb the infrared radiation from the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. An increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration causes a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. Thus, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is one of the most important factors in climate change.

Water influences climate through its continual cycling between water vapor, clouds, precipitation, and ground water. Both water vapor and clouds have large effects on the radiative balance of climate and directly influence tropospheric chemistry. Water is also important in polar ozone loss though the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. This can directly affect the radiative balance of climate and have a chemical perturbation on stratospheric ozone.

Furthermore, it takes longer for water emissions to disappear in the stratosphere than in the troposphere, so these aircraft water emissions increase the ambient concentration and directly impact the radiative balance and climate. Thus, new concerns have arisen regarding increasing contrails and enhanced cirrus formation. Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show a contrail coverage in 1992 and its estimate in 2050 (IPCC, 1999).....

The remainder of this excerpt can be found in Post #524 on Page 53. Thank you.

Et in Arcadia ego

09-05-2005, 07:40 PM

Any suggestions as to what could be done to get these scientists using the terminology you recommend?

LOL..

Maybe expose them to as much fluoride and uranium as Jimbo was for starters? Then I suggest a powerful blow to the side of the head with a blunt object, and possibly drilling a whole in the cranium for depositing some kitchen bleach.

I heard that worked wonders for Jeffrey Dahmer.

"It soon became obvious to me that all these old type scientists at ORNL knew Dahmer had long understood the secret chemtrail formula in the Arc of the Covenent.."

uuhhh..................

Insurrectionchemistry

09-05-2005, 08:02 PM

ET=prime example of seriously deranged persons due to inbreeding in Georgia.

Also, a prime example of someone that poses a threat to civil aircraft via active participation in CTC's games of telling aircraft cause droughts.

ET is also a prime example of the level of vapid that set the stage for the killing of the city of New Orleans.

ET's level of conceit and self-servingness is legendary, as well as his environmental degeneracy on global warming and this enabling the inept Govt. that killed 10,000 plus people in New Orleans. The ET's of the world will kill millions more as they blame everyone but themselves or become correctly informed on anything.

ET needs to tell all those people how sorry he is for letting them down by not providing responsible Govt. that would have prevented all those deaths. He also needs to spend productive time toward sending water and food to all those he failed.

ET's a prime example of being seriously deranged and his level of pure hate to the point of terrorism level threats shows in his quotation here:

""LOL..

Maybe expose them to as much fluoride and uranium as Jimbo was for starters? Then I suggest a powerful blow to the side of the head with a blunt object, and possibly drilling a whole in the cranium for depositing some kitchen bleach.

I heard that worked wonders for Jeffrey Dahmer.

"It soon became obvious to me that all these old type scientists at ORNL knew Dahmer had long understood the secret chemtrail formula in the Arc of the Covenent.."

uuhhh.................. ""

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 08:57 PM

The above-quoted passage regarding aircraft emissions is properly attributed to the scientist from whose publication it is excerpted:

Historical and Future Trends in Aircraft Performance, Cost, and Emissions

Joosung Joseph Lee
B.S., Mechanical Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998

Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and
the Engineering Systems Division
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
and
Master of Science in Technology and Policy
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 2000

2000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All rights reserved

Excerpt:

2.2 Aviation and the Environment Today

Aviation has now become a major mode of transportation and an integral part of the infrastructure of modern society. Currently, aircraft account for more than 10% of world’s passenger miles traveled (Schafer and Victor, 1997b). Aviation directly impacts the global economy in the form of commercial passenger travel, freighter transport, and business travelers, involving the suppliers and operators of aircraft, component manufacturers, fuel suppliers, airports, and air navigation service providers. In 1994, the aviation sector accounted for 24 million jobs globally and financially provided $1,140 billion in annual gross output (IATA, 1997).

Because of its growing influence on the global economy and the wide range of industries involved, the activities of the air transport industry have been directly circumscribed by public interest. Energy use and environmental impact, as represented by air pollution and noise, are two important drivers for today’s aviation sector. Currently, aviation fuel consumption corresponds to 2 to 3% of the total fossil fuels used worldwide, and more than 80% of this is used by civil aviation. In comparison, the entire transportation sector burns 20 to 25% of the total fossil fuels consumed. Thus the aviation sector alone uses 13% of the fossil fuels consumed in transportation, being the second largest transportation sector after road transportation (IPCC, 1996b).

In the future, total aviation fuel consumption is expected to continue to grow due to the rapid growth in air traffic volume. The subsequent increase in aircraft engine emissions has drawn particular attention among the aviation industry, the scientific community, and international governments in light global climate change. Through various forums among global participants, the effort to address these issues concerning growing aviation emissions has recently culminated in the IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Atmosphere. In review of this document, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) describes the current status of aviation and global climate as, "Aviation’s effects on the global atmosphere are potentially significant and expected to grow” (GAO, 2000).

Aircraft engines emit a wide range of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, and particulates. The environmental issues concerning these aircraft emissions originally arose from protecting local air quality in the vicinity of airports and have grown to global environmental issues, two of which may bear the direct consequences of aviation. One is climate change, which may alter weather patterns, and, for supersonic aircraft, stratospheric ozone depletion and resultant increase in ultraviolet-B (UV-B) at the earth's surface (IPCC, 1999).

The resultant radiative forcing from these aircraft emissions discharged directly at altitude is estimated to be 2 to 4 times higher than that due to aircraft carbon dioxide emissions alone, whereas the overall radiative forcing from the sum of all anthropogenic activities is estimated to be a factor of 1.5 times that of carbon dioxide emissions at the ground level. IPCC global modeling estimates show that aircraft were responsible for about 3.5% of the total accumulated anthropogenic radiative forcing of the atmosphere in 1992 as shown in Figure 2.1 (IPCC, 1999).

A number of direct and indirect species of aircraft emissions have been identified to affect climate. Carbon dioxide and water directly influence climate by radiative forcing while their indirect influences on climate include the production of [excess] ozone in the troposphere, alteration of the methane lifetime, formation of contrails, and modified cirrus cloudiness. As for the species that have indirect influences on climate, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and water vapor impact climate by modifying the chemical balance in the atmosphere (IPCC, 1999).

The atmospheric sources and sinks of CO2 occur principally at the earth’s surface through exchange between the biosphere and the oceans. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere absorb the infrared radiation from the earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. An increase in CO2 atmospheric concentration causes a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. Thus, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is one of the most important factors in climate change.

Water influences climate through its continual cycling between water vapor, clouds, precipitation, and ground water. Both water vapor and clouds have large effects on the radiative balance of climate and directly influence tropospheric chemistry. Water is also important in polar ozone loss though the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. This can directly affect the radiative balance of climate and have a chemical perturbation on stratospheric ozone.

Furthermore, it takes longer for water emissions to disappear in the stratosphere than in the troposphere, so these aircraft water emissions increase the ambient concentration and directly impact the radiative balance and climate. Thus, new concerns have arisen regarding increasing contrails and enhanced cirrus formation. Figures 2.2a and 2.2b show a contrail coverage in 1992 and its estimate in 2050 (IPCC, 1999).....

The remainder of this excerpt can be found in Post #524 on Page 53. Thank you.

.

Et in Arcadia ego

09-05-2005, 09:28 PM

ET=prime example of inbreeding in Georgia.

Also, a prime example of someone that poses a threat to civil aircraft via active participation in CTC's games of telling aircraft cause droughts.

ET is also a prime example of the level of vapid that set the stage for the killing of New Orleans.

ET's level of conceit and self-servingness is legendary, as well as his environmental degeneracy on global warming and this enabling the inept Govt that killed 10,000 plus people in New Orleans. The ET's of the world will kill millions more as they blame everyone but themselves or become correctly informed on anything.

ET needs to tell all those people how sorry he is for letting them down by not providing responsible Govt. that would have prevented all those deaths. He also needs to spend productive time toward sending water and food to all those he failed.

Maybe ET will head on up to 1600 Buttercup Circle, Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 and show you personally just how sorry he really is, Jimbo..

halva

09-05-2005, 09:34 PM

It is difficult enough to keep IS's postings constructive and informative rather than time-wasting, offensive, and useless, without your own particular idiotic interventions to keep him showing only his worst traits.

Insurrectionchemistry

09-05-2005, 09:50 PM

Looks to me like the seriously deranged ET has broken the rules on Arianna by listing personal information here, plus physical threats of violence, and comments that look terrorism directed.

ET writes that he will deliver his deranged and violent threats for terrorism personally:

"Maybe ET will head on up to 1600 Buttercup Circle, Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 and show you personally just how sorry he really is, Jimbo.."

ET may be spending lots of time in a Knoxville Jail, plus the local mental institution, if you leave the public road. Maybe even if you drive down the public road, if the cameras pick up your Ga. plates, and they will.

They don't take too kindly toward deranged stalkers from Georgia, who imply threats of personal attack, terrorism, and drive by places they don't belong. That prosecution is free in Tennessee and costly to the purpetrator. I have a very nice US Marshal neighbor that will be on you quicker than flys on fat back.

Posted: No Tresspassing and No Stalking.

Example of the mentally deranged ET putting up threats of physical violance and terrorism on Arianna's:

"Maybe expose them to as much fluoride and uranium as Jimbo was for starters? Then I suggest a powerful blow to the side of the head with a blunt object, and possibly drilling a whole in the cranium for depositing some kitchen bleach."

ET is a violently oriented and seriously sick person, who makes open threats of violence toward others and who causes risks to commercial aircraft by making false claims.

ET needs the professional help of a state's mental facility in the long term to keep him from causing harm to others and proposing acts of terrorism.

Even other activists call ET: "particular idiotic"

ET is a sick and violent person who cares not for the sick of New Orleans, another terrorism inclined sociopath from CTC's drug pushing activism.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 09:57 PM

Maybe ET will head on up to 1600 Buttercup Circle, Knoxville, Tennessee 37921 and show you personally just how sorry he really is, Jimbo..
For the record.

Grow up already.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 10:00 PM

26 March 2004
local6.com

Fliers back in droves; crowded skies returning
http://www.local6.com/technology/2949661/detail.html

Continued economic growth is being credited as the main cause for Americans getting back into the skies as the number of airline flights continues pushing to record levels of 1999 and 2000.

Those flight levels have reached the point where federal officials are taking action to avoid the well-publicized chronic flight delays prevalent in the summer of 2001 and earlier.

"Aviation is on the cusp of a paradigm shift," U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta told the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 29th Annual Aviation Forecast Conference. "Because a strong economy depends on a vibrant aviation system, the future of our system depends on new solutions that keep America as the worldwide leader in aviation."

The triggered plans include the airlines voluntarily delaying the takeoff of some flights to avoid congestion elsewhere along with reporting delays more quickly while the FAA said it will be quicker to trigger flight delays, the USA Today newspaper reported.

According to the FAA's annual aerospace forecast released Thursday, the number of people flying in the United States will reach pre-Sept. 11, 2001 levels by 2005, with an average growth rate of 6.8 percent over the next two years.

Mineta said that the new passengers are not the business travelers on whom many airlines have depended for revenue, but rather more cost-conscious passengers who shop for fares on the Internet and fueled the expansion of low-fare carrier.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 10:02 PM

26 March 2004
Newsday.com

Study: Airports May Soon Be Overcrowded
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw....story?coll=sns

WASHINGTON -- More than three dozen U.S. commercial airports will be unable to handle their air traffic by 2020 unless they are expanded, the Federal Aviation Administration says.

The FAA studied population growth, travel and income trends to determine airports' future needs. At least 43 airports will need to add capacity -- some more than once -- in the next 15 years.

Some will need it even sooner, the agency found. San Antonio; Palm Beach, Fla.; and Tucson, Ariz., are among the cities that will reach maximum capacity by 2013, when the number of air travelers is projected to have grown by about 50 percent, to 982 million.

Expanding airports isn't easy, especially in cities where they are located near dense neighborhoods.

Boston's Logan International Airport spent more than 30 years trying to overcome community opposition to a new runway. The airport authority has surmounted most legal obstacles, but it hasn't started pouring concrete yet.

Similarly, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport proposed a new runway in 1987. Opposition led to delay in the project's scheduled completion to 2008 from 2001.

The study by FAA and its research center, run by The MITRE Corp., reviewed 300 airports in 300 metropolitan areas. Projections of air traffic growth were based on where people are likely to live, work and vacation.

The report took into account such factors as the increasing popularity of leisure travel and the growth of low-cost carriers.

It found five airports already are too crowded: Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, Newark Liberty International Airport, Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, Philadelphia International Airport and LaGuardia Airport in New York.

"If you think we have problems with delay today, wait till you get to 2013," said Catherine Lang, the FAA's deputy associate administrator for airports. "Wait till 2020 and you've got 42 choices for headaches."

Lang, who worked on the study, said officials concluded that 23 airports in 2020 won't have enough capacity if they don't carry out their current plans to expand. If every airport with expansion plans follows through, 18 airports still won't have enough capacity.

Similarly, 11 airports could have too little capacity in 2013 if they don't complete planned expansions. Even if they do, another 16 airports will need more capacity.

The FAA helps pay to expand airports. The agency also is responsible for modernizing and maintaining the air traffic control system. The report is expected to help the agency set priorities, Lang said.

"San Antonio was not on our radar screen as having a tsunami coming their way," Lang said. "This tells us we need to work with San Antonio."

Airports have to move both passengers and planes, so capacity can be increased by building a new terminal or a new runway. Redesigning airspace or changing air traffic control procedures also can help an airport accommodate more planes.

FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said on Thursday, though, that constructing new runways is the best way to increase the system's capacity.

"Staying the course in new runway construction was never a question," Blakey said.

Last year, four new runways were opened in Houston, Orlando, Miami and Denver, helping to increase the overall system capacity by 4 percent, Blakey said.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 10:03 PM

26 March 2004
EDIE Interactive

Including aviation in emissions trading would hit low cost flights hardest
(Direct link no longer viable - sorry. This was originally posted on "EDIE Interactive".)

A report by environmental accountancy firm Trucost has shown that including aviation in the European emissions trading scheme (ETS) would hit low cost flights, and companies that do not operate outside of the EU, the hardest.

It would, however, reduce emissions more efficiently than taxes, the report finds.

As the scheme would, by definition, be restricted to flights within the EU, airlines with more globally diversified routes will be less affected than those whose flights are entirely within the EU. The small profit margins of low cost airlines, as well as the greater elasticity of demand of leisure seats, means that these will also be hit hard by inclusion in the ETS, the study found.

The study looked at the likely effect that a carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme would have on the European aviation sector. It found that there is an "inherent and growing conflict between the unconstrained growth of the aviation sector (see related story) and wider policy objectives to reduce the overall level of emissions in the EU".

This view has already been expressed by the UK's Environmental Audit Committee (see related story) in a report last year.

Trucost's study found that, the cap and trade schemes, such as ETS, reduce emissions more efficiently than taxes and encourage the development of reduced emission technologies and constrain demand for air transportation.

Despite Trucost's predictions for the low cost flights sector, EasyJet is in favour of including aviation in the ETS. A spokesperson for the company told edie they had called on the UK Chancellor to create a cross-industry working group to address these long term issues and possible solutions.

"We believe that going forward the government should look into facilitating an emissions trading scheme for the industry," the spokesperson said. She added that there were a number of estimates of what the impact of ETS for the aviation industry would entail, each showing marked variation.

"As pointed out in the Trucost report, until an emissions trading scheme is fleshed out, we will not be in a position to assess how individual airlines will really be affected."

The Trucost report also found that there were various technical obstacles to the introduction of ETS, such as allocation methods, the non-equivalence of emissions at altitude with those at ground level, competitive issues, and the implication of unilateral EU action.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 10:05 PM

18 July 1998
Science News

What aircraft leave behind
Richard Monastersky
http://www.findarticles.com/p/artic...154/ai_21003402

As the volume of air traffic soars, scientists have grown concerned about the pollution spewing out the back ends of jets. One long-term study of conditions over Wyoming suggests that airplane exhaust has added substantially to the number of microscopic particles found at high altitudes, possibly helping to cloud the skies.

David J. Hofmann of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo., began investigating this problem in 1976, when one of his meteorological balloons passed through an unusual layer of tiny particles and droplets called condensation nuclei, 75,000 feet above Earth's surface. Because sonic booms occasionally echoed near his research site in Laramie, Wyo., Hofmann suspected that a military jet might have left the trail of particles. He eventually determined that a high-flying reconnaissance aircraft had flown upwind of the region 18 hours earlier.

In the years since, Hofmann and his colleagues have detected hundreds of similar layers between 29,000 and 41,000 feet in altitude, where most jets fly. It is difficult to attribute these bands of condensation nuclei to particular planes because the Federal Aviation Administration doesn't keep records long enough to be useful to the researchers, says Hofmann. On March 31, 1997, however, a balloon passed through a distinct nuclei layer, which they were able to trace to a Delta Airlines flight from Seattle to Dallas-Ft. Worth. The flight had passed upwind of the balloon about 3 hours earlier, report Hofmann and his coworkers in the July 1 GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS.

From studies of aircraft engine exhaust, atmospheric chemists know that sulfurous gases emitted by planes quickly convert to microscopic droplets of sulfuric acid (SN: 7/6/96, p. 12). Natural sources, such as volcanoes, can also produce sulfuric acid droplets and other minute particles in the atmosphere, but these do not form the thin, concentrated layers that aircraft create, says Hofmann.

Looking back over balloon measurements since 1973, Hofmann and his colleagues found 432 discrete instances of condensation nuclei layers. Unlike the natural condensation nuclei, whose numbers rise in summer, these concentrated bands appear with the same frequency in each season, as do aircraft flights. The steadily rising number of nuclei layers has kept pace with the increasing number of jet flights over the years.

The researchers estimate that aircraft have increased the concentration of natural condensation nuclei over Laramie by about 10 percent. This would have little effect if the tiny droplets from aircraft join up with larger natural ones. On the other hand, plane exhaust could stimulate the growth of cirrus clouds, says Hofmann.

Some researchers have observed an increase in cirrus clouds associated with aircraft contrails, although they have had difficulty estimating the effect of jets on general cloudiness, says Patrick Minnis of NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Va. Cirrus clouds can warm Earth's surface, he notes, and preliminary calculations suggest that the increase in cirrus clouds caused by jets since the 1960s could account for a warming of 0.1 [degrees] C to 0.3 [degrees] C in the United States.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 10:06 PM

15 July 2004
China Daily

Airbus: China's air transport to soar
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/englis...tent_348811.htm

Chinese air transportation is to grow nearly five times than its current volume by 2022, Adam Brown, Airbus's Vice President of Customer Affairs Division, made the prediction during his China visit.

According to Brown, airline traffic volume on the Chinese mainland will see a robust long-term growth. He predicted that passengers carried by airlines of the Chinese mainland will grow at an annual rate of more than 20 per cent in both 2004 and 2005, respectively. After then, the passenger traffic would score a normal growth averaging 8.1 per cent per year to reach about 500 billion passenger/kilometer by 2022, Brown said.

Brown attributed the rapid growth of China's air transportation to a robust growth in GDP and personal income, deregulation of ticket prices, privatization of airlines, less restrictive bilateral air services agreements with other countries, and the increasing number of visas being issued to outbound tourists.

Further stimulus to the increase in aviation market will be provided by such major events as the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008, Shanghai Expo in 2010 and Guangzhou Asian Games in 2010, as well as the setup of a free-trade zone between China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), he said.

Between 1980 and 1998, demand for air transportation on China's domestic air routes increased 20 times, growing at an average of 18 percent per year.

During the same period, the airlines of the Chinese mainland achieved even more stunning growth of more than 20 percent per year on international routes.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 10:08 PM

22 June 2004
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics - News Release

Air Freight is Fastest Growing Segment of U.S. Cargo Economy; New Study Tracks Trends in $29 Billion Dollar-A-Day Cargo Industry
http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2.../bts017_04.html

Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - Air freight has been the fastest growing segment of the American cargo industry according to a new report released today by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics. The report, titled Freight Shipments in America, shows that the total value of air freight moved in the United States doubled from 1993 to 2002 and now totals $2.7 billion a day, growth that was faster than any other segment of the cargo industry.

“Cargo is one of the fastest growing segments of the U.S. economy,” said Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta. “Now we know exactly how much transportation is literally moving the American economy every day.”

The overall cargo industry has seen tremendous growth over the past decade. Between 1993 and 2002, the total amount of freight transported in America grew 18 percent to 16 billion tons while the total value of that freight grew 45 percent to $10.5 trillion. The news was even better for movers of smaller parcels. There was a 56 percent increase in the value of under 500 pound shipments from 1993 to 2002.

“Reliable transportation data shapes policy and drives good investments in transportation systems,” said Secretary Mineta. “Understanding the role freight plays in our economy is crucial if we are going to sustain today’s fast-growing economy in the years ahead.”

The report presents the latest information on freight movements in the United States. Based on a comprehensive survey, it describes the freight American businesses transported in 2002 and relates these shipments to trends in the U.S. economy. The report also freight trends by form of transportation, type of commodity, distance shipped and shipment size.

The Freight Shipments in America report was released today during a news conference at the Louisville International Airport. The airport today received a $6.2 million grant to expand its cargo runway and improve the roads used to move cargo into and out of the airport.

To view a copy of Freight Shipments in America, or for more information about the new study, see the Department’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics website, www.bts.gov. The numbers released today in “Freight Shipments in America” are preliminary. Final numbers will be released later in 2004.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 10:10 PM

15 July 2004
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics - News Release

Domestic Airline Traffic Up 13.1 Percent in April 2004 From April 2003
http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2.../bts019_04.html

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) today reported, in a release of preliminary data, that U.S. airlines carried 53.6 million domestic passengers in April, 13.1 percent more than in April 2003 (Table 1).

These passengers were carried on 814,033 flights, up 5.3 percent from the flights operated in April 2003.

In other domestic comparisons from April 2003 to April 2004:

Revenue passenger miles, a measure of the number of passengers and the distance flown, were up 16.2 percent.

Available seat-miles, a measure of airline capacity, were up 10.1 percent.

Load factor, a measure of how many seats are sold and used, was up 4.1 percentage points.

Flight stage length, the average non-stop distance, was up 5.0 percent.

Passenger trip length, the average distance passengers travel, was up 2.7 percent.

The number of domestic airline passengers fell 1.7 percent in April from March (Table 2). Month-to-month comparisons may be affected by seasonal factors.

Among airlines, Southwest Airlines carried 7.1 million domestic passengers in April, the most of any airline (Table 3).

Among airports, Hartsfield-Jackson International in Atlanta continued in April to be the busiest domestic airport, with 3.2 million passenger boardings (Table 4).

***
Let's see - 814,033 flights - that's commercial passenger airline flights ONLY being referenced here - divided by 30 days in April - making an average of 27,130 commercial airline passenger flights per day over the continental United States.

foot_soldier

09-05-2005, 10:12 PM

24 July 2004
China Daily

Landmark pact expands airline routes with US
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/englis...tent_351193.htm

Air services between China and the United States will largely expand thanks to a landmark aviation agreement, sources from General Administration of Civil Aviation of China (CAAC) said on Friday.

Over the next six years, the agreement -- which is to be officially signed on Saturday -- will more than double the number of airlines that may operate between China and the United States, a CAAC official who declined to be named said.

It will also increase by nearly five-fold the number of weekly flights between the two countries -- from the current limit of 54 weekly round-trip flights to 249 weekly round-trip flights at the end of a six-year phase-in period.

The agreement also allows services between additional cities, eliminating restrictions on destinations and permitting unlimited code-sharing between US and Chinese airlines on any US-China route.

It provides unlimited rights to any US carrier that wishes to operate to certain western and northeastern Chinese provinces in greater need of international service.

"This agreement is a result of the fruitful bilateral co-operation between China and the United States in the past 20 years and will benefit airline companies and make the interaction between two peoples more convenient," the official said.

The introduction of additional foreign airlines will help step up the construction of aviation infrastructure facilities and push for the development of the nation's aviation industry at large, he said.

Visiting US Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta highlighted the significance of the landmark aviation agreement, saying it will fundamentally reshape the commercial aviation relationship between the two countries.

"The air service agreement represents a major breakthrough in both economic liberalization and transportation liberalization," Mineta said in a speech at the American Chamber of Commerce Luncheon in Beijing on Friday.

The agreement was reached in Washington after four rounds of talks starting last February.

The last agreement to expand US-China air services was concluded in April 1999, when each country's carriers were allowed to increase their weekly flights in the market from 27 to 54, and each side was allowed to designate one additional airline, for a total of four, to serve the market.

The new agreement will allow five additional airlines from each country to serve the US-China market.

According to the agreement, the United States may name one additional all-cargo airline, while China may name either a passenger or cargo airline, to start service later this year.

The other four new airlines may be either passenger or cargo carriers, with one new carrier entering the market in each of the years 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2010.

Mineta said the agreement also contains innovative new provisions that may serve as a model for aviation liberalization elsewhere.

"For example, the agreement will substantially increase the 'doing business' freedoms of US airlines in China, including broad rights for US cargo airlines who are willing to invest in 'hub' operations in China," he said.

Mineta appreciated China's liberalization in the important bilateral market, saying China deserves much credit for its foresight and willingness to open its international aviation market so extensively.

"Additionally, China deserves credit for the substantial reforms that it has been willing to take in its domestic aviation system," Mineta said.

These reforms will help to build a more viable, stronger and more competitive civil aviation network, he said.

Boomer Chick

09-06-2005, 11:48 AM

Its projected growth means that by 2050 it is set to become one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gas emissions with around 10 per cent of climate change directly attributable to aircraft. On short-haul flights air travel produces around three times as much carbon dioxide per passenger as rail.

The Plane Truth: Aviation and the Environment
Transport 2000
www.us-caw.org/planetr.pdf (http://www.us-caw.org/planetr.pdf)

Notice, the projection regarding the contributions of greenhouse gases emitted from aviation for 2050. It is true that it COULD, in the future, contribute and be regarded as one of the largest in volume contributors to greenhouse gases......

but it isn't at this time. We also must remember, that with innovation and technology as well as the pressures from peak oil itself, the aviation industry may go through profound changes we can't even imagine by the date of 2050! Let's see, in 45 years engineers and scientists can certainly revamp and retool the whole aviation industry. Compare the year 1900 to the year 1950.

Realizing clean energies and totally reconfiguring land travel with mass transit and super-sonic monorail shipping systems, engineering new aviation technologies and sources of fuel and energy, and completely redesigning most all engines used for shipping, trucking, rail, engineers will stimulate growth providing both jobs and opportunities for a future free from emissions and the pollution accompanying them.

As a government voice for alarm, which will, added to all other voices, stimulate reengineering and improvement, the GAO states the following. I have bolded the applicable facts pertaining to aviations contribution at this time to the total greenhouse gas composition factor.

The GAO found that, in the United States, aviation emissions accounted for about three percent of the greenhouse gases and other emissions that contribute to the global warming phenomenon. While this percentage is small in relative terms—other transportation sources contribute 23 percent, and other industrial emissions account for 41 percent—aviation emissions are potentially significant for a number of reasons:

-- Jet aircraft emissions are deposited directly into the upper atmosphere and some of them have a greater warming effect than gases emitted closer to the surface, such as automobile exhaust

-- The primary gas emitted by jet aircraft engines is carbon dioxide, which can survive in the atmosphere up to 100 years.

-- Carbon dioxide combined with other exhaust gases and particulates emitted from jet engines could have two to four times as great an impact on the atmosphere as carbon dioxide emissions alone.

-- The growing demand for jet air service is likely to generate more emissions that cannot be offset by reductions achieved through technological improvements alone.

The last point begs revision. I find this statement negative and lacking in positive scientific vision. Improvements in engine design, source of fuel itself, and totally new technologies will indeed produce clean technologies devoid of emissions. Although other countries may lead this technical revolution, America still stands a chance if we wake up and funnel resources into the proper scientific goals. The GAO is an accounting office, not a scientific body.

20 October 2003
EurActiv.com

UK aviation industry recognises need to address aviation's climate change impact

In short:

On 13 October the EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström discussed with the UK aviation industry alternatives as to how to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change.

Nice. It's well known that the European community leads in environmental awareness and activity. Nothing new here. Old articles -- 2002 and 2003.

Joosung Joseph Lee
B.S., Mechanical Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998

Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and
the Engineering Systems Division
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of
Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics
and
Master of Science in Technology and Policy
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
September 2000

NOx emissions are also known to contribute to the reduction in the atmospheric lifetime of methane, which is another greenhouse gas (IPCC, 1999).

I found this interesting "fact" (above) a positive related to methane. But of course scientists will be challenged to control that gas on a more active level as the warming releases it naturally from various natural sources. Although nothing you posted in this study, an academic paper for a BS student receiving his doctorate, is new to those of us well-read on the subject, it was a good reminder of the complicated nature of the various components emitted by aircraft engines and the roles they play in the atmosphere........ both positive and negative. And that is just to remain objective. Obviously the technology must change in regard to dwindling fuel resources and those who engineer the cleaner, newer technologies for global transportation and commerce will be the future leaders of a cleaner future world.

Low flying 'would aid air quality'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/s...1098385,00.html

Interesting remedy.... flying lower. Might work in the short term while technology transitions.

"Aviation and the global atmosphere" suggests that the impact of aviation on climate change could grow to between 5 and 15 per cent of the total human-induced impact by 2050 (with a mid-range scenario of 6 per cent).

Yes, at this rate without any changes, the future aviation industry could produce such general effects, but this statement is devoid of the various effects for both cooling and warming, not to mention ozone influence and cloud production itself, and only uses the term "climate change" without describing the changes or defining them. Poorly worded statement.

22 June 2004
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics - News Release

Air Freight is Fastest Growing Segment of U.S. Cargo Economy; New Study Tracks Trends in $29 Billion Dollar-A-Day Cargo Industry
http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2.../bts017_04.html

Not surprising. With the advent of computers for small businesses and large, the consumer population has resurrected mail ordering. With globalization, the markets have expanded to other countries as well.... both incoming and outgoing. Within the continent, if the Feds would funnel infrastructure, a new, clean supersonic ground transportation system could alleviate much of the air cargo growth. It could be clean, magnetic and electric, and offer high speed transport.

15 July 2004
U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics - News Release

Domestic Airline Traffic Up 13.1 Percent in April 2004 From April 2003
http://www.bts.gov/press_