Maybe we could start by banning all card-carrying members of "green groups" from flying, including members of the Australia Institute (I bet they do heaps more than me). This could offset the predicted growth in the aviation industry and let sensible people get on with enjoying their lives. This would be a great way to show the Australian public they are putting their money where their mouth is.

The article contains some sensible and practical solutions to the GHG emissions of aviation. However, the suggestion that we need "a Kyoto-style emissions trading scheme" is curious since one of the Kyoto agreement's major failings is that it doesn't have a workable emissions trading scheme. Its other failings, of course, are that most of the world's largest GHG emitters aren't signed up to the agreement which renders it ineffective, while many of the current signatories won't reach their promised GHG reduction targets.
Yes, we need to do something serious about GHG emissions from aviation but another Kyoto-style agreement isn't one of the solutions.

Andrew & Christian;
You are in a panic over a non event.
It is looking more and more likely each month that we are now at Peak Oil.
Aviation will be one of the first industries to start down the giddy slope.
Once the government realises the problem aviation will be one of the
industries with the tightest rationing.

Fuel costs are such large proportion of their costs that as fuel prices rise
the cost of flying will increase quite fast. Much faster than any
carbon trading tax could cause.

I was in favour of selling Qantas to anyone dopey enough to buy it.
We have now had over two years of no increase in world oil production.
There has in fact been a small reduction. The reason you have not
noticed, other than a small rise in price of fuel, is because poorer countries
have reduced their buying. Note the frequent blackouts in some African
countires, they can't afford the fuel for power generation.

BAzz, You have hit the nail on the proverbial head. We are facing the perfect storm of Peak Oil and climate change. The peak oil challenge is enormous and will affect every aspect of our lives. Our cities are completly dependant on cheap and available oil. Industrial activity such as mass tourisim, international trade and at a domestic level commuting from far flung suburbs to work will all become increasingly expensive in a very short time frame. I do not see any ability in our systems to respond in a meaningful way in the time frame necessary to address these enormous challenges. I see the process will have huge domestic consequences as the less wealthy on the fringes of large Australian cities will be hit with huge increases in transport costs and in the middle term fuel rationing. Property not served by rail systems will crash in value. The response to build much expanded rail infrastructure will not be possible even in the medium future.
The future looks bleak.

Pdev, I think we must be living on different planets. In the last 50 years (i.e., excluding world wars and similar), the history of planet Earth is that human beings have shown themselves to be intelligent and resilient enough to respond effectively to various crises. For example, the world coped pretty well with the oil price hikes of the mid-1970s, although there was some short-term economic pain in some countries.
The doom and gloom scenario you suggest is, I respectfully submit, unrealistic and not backed up by historical evidence of similar past catastrophies. As stated in my first post on this topic, a shortage of oil will have one profound effect: the cost of oil will rise. In turn, people will choose or be forced to become more fuel efficient and alternative sources of energy supplies will be found. The adverse impacts of peak oil aren't going to happen in an instant: we'll feel the results of reduced oil availability over a period or years, maybe even decades. This will give us plenty of time to build more fuel efficient cars and provide more public transport, etc.

It might be reasonable if GW was real, and if it was, is it something we need to bother about. It seems that the head of NASA thinks it is beat up and we dont need to do anything.

I mean in my simple terms I would have thought that if the temperature is rising (by whatever means) then wouldnt that mean there will be more water vapour in the atmosphere from evaporation?. If it goes up then surely it must eventually come down, somewhere.

Didnt I learn at High School/University that are not Evaporation and Condensation cooling processes?.

If that is the case then surely, if we have more C02 , more heat, and more water, both in liquid and vapour form, then the bio mass will increase, thereby absorbing carbon. Come to think of it isnt that why the deserts are becoming green again,eg the Negev.

If the outgoing infra red gets the carbon molecules in a lather, such that they get excited and heat each other up, then why is it that the level of outgoing infra red has not dropped, when measured at the top of the atmosphere by the satellites.Funny about that.

If the relationship between C02 and temperature is logarithmic then isnt the problem being grossly overstated anyway.

If the GW theory says that the GW induced temperature rise will show up first in the troposphere, then why doesnt it.

Oh silly me, I forgot. It is all driven by the climate models that conveniently all agree with each other because they all are doing the same thing..wrongly.

Like, in effect, using a linear projection for the increase in Co2 versus temperature, and not being able to represent the behaviour of clouds properly, and not just because they change the albedo factor.

Oh yes thats right, more heat, more evaporation, more clouds with a lighter colour albedo reflecting the sun back, before it got here.

But they can still tell us with absolute confidence that in 100 years time we will all be frying in hell. Sounds like complete bull dust to me.

Pope Benedict XVI recently called for a Permanent World Wide Car Boycott (http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/04/144209.php) We need the same for air travel.

I am puzzled by some assertions in this article - aviation currently expends 2% of our greenhouse emissions. This is likely to increase by 250% by 2050, that is equivalent to 5% of our present greenhouse emissions. We need to cut back to 20% of our present emissions by 2050. And thus aviation emissions will equal our total allowance by then? 5% greater than 20%? Perhaps I have made a mistake in calculation or reading of the article, though I have double checked.

I am becoming increasingly sceptical of the figures often glibly cited by advocates of particular positions, for or against various actions.

Related issues of ‘peak oil’ and humanity’s dependence on fossil fuels are worthy threads, constructive comments help.

BigMal obviously does not understand the concept of ‘positive feedback loops’ in terms of climate science (no matter his highschool/academic background) so I will try to explain (I apologise to others who know already).

Water vapour and CO2 are powerful greenhouse gases absorbing long-wave radiation. Water vapour concentration increases as a result of a global warming and enhances the greenhouse effect further (positive feedback loop). The rate of evaporation is affected by the temperature and higher temperatures increase the (saturated) vapour pressure.

One important difference between water vapour and other greenhouse gases such as CO2 is that the moisture spends only a short time in the atmosphere (say 10 days) before being precipitated out, whereas the life time of CO2 in the atmosphere is in the order of a 100 years.

Consequently, the planet will experience more extreme weather events (floods and droughts); some areas will benefit, other areas will not.

There is plenty of evidence that the oceans and terrestrial biosphere are not absorbing the amount of carbon we have been releasing into the atmosphere.

BigMal, can you point me to your claims “they can still tell us with absolute confidence that in 100 years time we will all be frying in hell”. If not, are you not scaremongering like some politicians?

On a more sober note, for those that haven’t studied the science on global warming and want to understand the concepts and make constructive comment, the following site is worth a look at;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/faq/

And bigmal, if you don’t understand the science, ask the moderators/contributors questions, you won’t be limited to 350 words, you might learn something.

Or this;

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

this is the AR4 report that caused all the fuss in the 1st place and the reason why governments, businesses, individuals and groups are taking climate change seriously, unlike some people with their head in the sand and living in the dark ages.

The real world has moved on bigmal, the debate is what to do about GW

Personaly, I don't believe for a second this rubbish of Global warming.
From my seat, all I can see is another opportunity to rip us off some more bigtime.
I do believe we have created "LOCAL" weather changes due to our own stupidity and greed by indiscrimanently clearing vegetation willy nilly and the idiotic spread of suburbia.
Now, getting down to the emissions from aircraft, it's very strange that these facts are not published more widely, especially when we are being told GW is a serious threat, another strange anomaly is the emissions from military vehicles, and in that frame, I include, Land/Sea/Air, which are some of the worst offenders you can imagine, not to mention the effects of their explosives used so indiscrimantly.
One mode of transport that comes to mind, is sea transport, recently visited a web site in the U.S. where it was alledged super tankers emit up to 15 tons of sulfur per hour whilst under power, similar ships also emitt massive emissions whilst under transit,(Hmmm, maybe this is the reason we are seeing so many DEAD areas in our oceans these days ?) hand in glove with ships are diesel railways, these are also huge contributors of emissions to our environment. Let me tell you, one gallon of diesel will not even start your average Loco, nor will a 200 litre drum of the same stuff.Worse still, operators in an effort to keep their costs as low as they can, buy the cheapest diesel they can lay their hands on, and this is mostly of very inferior quality which they'd never get away with, trying to use it on road transport.
Yet in all the discussions/hype/gab fests, NONE of these mode of transport are ever mentioned nor given consideration.
Thus, I come away with the belief, the messengers of doom regards GB are liars and spreading fear under false pretences.

Well done Davsab. You took the bait.

I have had a look at the IPCC reports, and Real Climate web site and all that they prove is that we dont really know.... still, and whats more the IPCC is saying this as well, once you get beyond the corrupted SPM document.

The debate is certainly not over. The Head of NASA ( Griffin) is more correct than your mindless attempt at a rebuttal

The relationship between C02 and temperature is still logarithmic, the amount of outgoing infra red at the TOA is still normal.

The MWP was still hotter than today by at least 1C, and the troposphere still isnt behaving itself,and the River Tornio in Finland, with records going back to 1690, has still performed the way it always has, showing that we were getting warmer long before power stations and motor cars.

The Antarctic is still getting bigger, and colder.

The GCM's still cant model clouds properly and the IPCC documents themselves say this. There is as much uncertainty about the albedo effect measured in w/m2 as there is Co2 effect. Roger Pielkes critique of the IPCC report you referenced,and the way GCM's are put together and used just confirms ones suspicions about their efficacy.

Droughts in the USA are now being show to be lessened by the effects of GW, not increased. It just goes on and on.

Oh, and BTW, the story that Co2 stays in the atmosphere for 100 years is based around the isotope ratios and uses a calculations/techniques that are now seen to be flimsy.

Have another try.

I am sure all the world’s political, business and religious leaders would be pleased to see BigMal’s published and peer reviewed theories on GW in the appropriate journals.

They may want to take into account his musings before adopting or implementing strategies that would have world wide repercussions!

On the other hand, could it be that BigMal just likes fishing and playing games on forums such as OLO?

Avagoodnight

"Pope Benedict XVI recently called for a Permanent World Wide Car Boycott (http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/04/144209.php) We need the same for air travel."
He then promptly jumped in his limousine and drove to the airport. Hmmm.

"The real world has moved on bigmal, the debate is what to do about GW"
Maybe somebody should tell NASA's and James Hansens' boss. At last some common sense.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_Administrator_Michael_Griffin_Not_Sure_Global_Warming_A_Problem_999.html

"BigMal obviously does not understand the concept of ‘positive feedback loops’ in terms of climate science (no matter his highschool/academic background) so I will try to explain"
Isn't he helpful? I think bigmal understands more than you think davsab.

A non-Australian's Comment:

Aviation certainly needs to be targetted for intervention.
Equally important is to do soemthing about the WTO dominated free trade after quickly assessing how many thousand tons of Diesel that is unnecsssarily burnt by ships, trains, and trucks and the massive quantities of GHGs produced thereby.

Asim Majumdar. Mumbai, India

Somebody has already told Griffin, his name is Mr President. Even George is now changing his tune, not quite a back-flip like our own John dubya though.

Griffin at least admits NASA can not “take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another … NASA is not an agency chartered to battle climate change."

If Big Mac, Alzo or anyone else would like to go to the NASA site, try these.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007051524971.html

An update on Antarctica’s ice and snow melt, contrary to BigMal’s assertions.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html

A bit dated (2006) but says much the same thing and easy to read

http://www.physicscentral.com/action/2006/grace-research.html

Amazing GRACE … requires a few more years to substantiate trends in climate change, but already corroborates CSIRO’s claims that our current drought is most likely due to global warming – not some cyclical event that our PM wants to hang on to. Pray for rain – why not, better than sticking your head in the sand.

Try the NASA archives that pertain to the science of climate change.

It will be interesting to see the GW skirmish this week at the G8 talks. But hey, even they acknowledge something has to be done. Give credit where credit is due though, even the real big boys and girls are moving on.

“I think bigmal understands more than you think davsab.” Methinks he is a sceptic (contrarian) at best, a denier at worst. I have time for the former, a little less for the latter. Where do you sit Alzo or can you offer any constructive views in moving forward?

Most people don’t want to take the risk on our planet’s future and only want to do the right thing; they expect our leaders to do the same.

BTW, ‘white-housers’ in NASA attempted to silence Hansen, typical strategy of deniers – a case of ‘killing’ the messenger. Much akin to what Alzo wants done to the IPCC no doubt.

Asim (a global citizen) makes a good comment. Developed and developing countries’ consumerism and greed, together with globalisation, is driving increased GHG emissions.

Mauget SA 2004, shows that the over all pattern of climate variation is a reduced tendency to hydrological drought to an increased incidence of Hydrological surplus. This is in reference to the corn belt in the USA and instinctively is what one would expect with increases in temperatures and more moisture. The same logically should apply elswhere.

Holgate 2007 shows that the cumulative increase in the mean global sea level has been about 150mm,since 1900, and the curve is dropping, ie decelerating. So much for there being any doom laden ice melt.

That still leaves all the other hard to swallow points as well Davsab.

and no, I am not a denier, just very sceptical and suspiciuous of anyone who uses computer models to project 100 years ahead and frighten people as to the consequences. That is both irresponsible and absurd.

On top of this there are pages of instances where the theory is not supported by the current evidence,some of it as recounted above, based upon records going back to 1690.

And we are still left with the fact that it was warmer in the MWP.

Cheers

May conclusions be right if assumptions are questionable? -

“With falling prices and rising incomes Australians are flying more than ever before. But climate change is going to change all this. How are we going to deal with our addiction to flying?”

Whose real incomes are on rise? What category of Australians travels more? Is addiction to flying or access to free-of-charge flights the most?

However, one must not be surprised for such a deliberation if UK report suggested increasing of row meal import in order to decrease local production of a cattery affecting national statistics of green gas emissions.

First let me apologise to all genuine OLO posters on this article. Some others are treating the article in this forum as a game and are trying to hijack it.

Big Mac et al, my below comments are directed at you and whatshisname.

Your citation (Mauget) in context and reference to the US Corn Belt and then saying “instinctively is what one would expect” and “the same logically should apply elsewhere” demonstrates that you are in fact just a denier.

If you were indeed a sceptic (in the scientific sense) you would know the appropriate channels, sites and syntax to present your case. You obviously haven’t.

As for your Holgate citation and saying “So much for there being any doom laden ice melt”. What are you on? You haven’t a clue what your talking about.

It is a fact that IF the ice caps, glaciers and ice sheets disintegrate, sea levels will rise by about 70 metres – this is the doom you are alluding to. BUT, no one is saying this is going to happen any time soon Big Mac; can you comprehend this salient point?

IF they do disintegrate, it would take 1000’s of years before a sea level rise of this magnitude would occur.

I’m sure you are up to date with the research Big Mac et al (NOT), check out this, published today,

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006JF000597.shtml

Only the abstract of course, for a few dollars, you can have the whole paper.

Big Mac et al, go back to school, you might learn something.

As you say,
Cheers

Davsab.
Obviously it is you who are having difficulties with the logic and language. If the current rate of increase of the sea level is not accelerating then that says something about what is not happening now. I was in fact also responding to the repeated claims from your pals, the alarmists, that the physical evidence for GW is contradictory.There is plenty of it, in fact.

I well understood the calculation that even if the ice was melting it would take ages to disappear.But that is not what is being claimed. The claim is that it is happening now.I thought that was obvious.

One only has to read the claims from the British Antarctic Survey BAS group to appreciate the extent of the exaggerations

The corn belt example is but another despite your nonsensical response. The alarmists dont mind using an example from one area and extrapolating to the principal to justify their case, and in fact the IPCC documents and other reports are full of it.

The alarmists and Gore in particular are quite adept at using individual examples to justify their case when closer examanination reveals that it is just not so. Dare I mention Kilimanjaro etc etc .

If I do not use the usual words and phraseology of the science shonks thats because I can read, assess and think for myself.ie I am not parrot. Hopefully if more people did it they may come the same conclusion, namely what a beat up it is.

It is true that co2 has a heating effect but its impact is what is in dispute.If that makes me a denier, then so be it.

I also note with some interest the range of points that are not responded to.

Sleep well Davsab, secure in the knowledge that you and your ilk have done your damage, and you have got your funding for your next frolic at our expense.

"Obviously it is you who are having difficulties with the logic and language" -simply clash of mentalities. Stupidity of so-called "Australian way of science" needs no comment from not belonging to UK=bonded minders.

Who wants to fly in a coal fired aircraft ?
Even if Branson gets his biodiesal jet to fly we will not be able
to grow enough crops to feed it let alone feed ourselves.

Look face it, the airlines are on borrowed time.
QANTAS will NEVER pay for the 20 380 super jumbos it has ordered.
Think about it, if we have in fact arrived at peak oil now what do you
think will happen to liquid fuel prices including gas ?
The highest monthly peak of oil production was May 2005.
It has not risen above that level since.
When the price goes up, some extra production will become economical
but these known sources are small and will barely cope, let alone make
up for increased demand. The increase in demand in the last couple
of years was covered by a decrease in demand in poorer countries
due to the raised prices.
How long do you think that can continue ?

Global Warming is not a problem people can solve.
Read this;
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5933

“Global warming”, “climate change” etc are simply issues of the Earth ageing.

Usual “burden of a white man”, that is a simple self-convincing in own biological superiority of so-called “Australian scientists” to a great extent only inherited their posts at local degree-selling seemingly education enterprises, does not allow them make even elementarily right conclusion on interlinked complexity data collected presents.

A fuss of oncoming “Sydney protocol” is a next doll for illiteral rednecks to rip them off during next term in Kiribati.

MichaelK, I think you need to attend a "local degree-selling seemingly education enterprises" and learn to write a sentence in english.

I write in perfectly understandable worldwide English, be sure alzo, and, unlike you, I did attend both universities and local money-sucking racist “higher educative” places called “Australian universities” to understand a difference between education and cheating an “Australian education system” mostly is.

However, this system is still too good for an Anglo-colony stacked in the Dark Ages of feudalism anyway.

"worldwide English"...must be a new form of english taught overseas ie. not at the "racist “higher educative” places called “Australian universities”"

Do I detect a wee chip on your wee shoulder?

What you, alzo, really detected and aired unwillingly is primitivism of English –“worldwide English” according to you, and “I write in PERFECTLY UNDERSTANDABLE WORLDWIDE English”, which is definitely of different meaning.

However, all this has nothing with a topic but only an example of excusing Australian racist practice to employ on biological grounds only as employers’ governing mates introduce new tougher rules supposing unpaid humiliation called “Work for the Dole” upon nineteen months up to 25 hours weekly for professionals of non-Anglo-background surely.