Not so - Flakey Statistical claim (global warming again)?

[nonniey]

OK all, it's late so maybe my math is way off. The story linked below claimed that the cancellation of Flights in Europe was benificial to the environment because of the reduction in the amount of Green House Gases emitted by aircraft.

They claim 510,000 tons of Green House Gases are emmitted by aircraft over Europe everyday (of normal operations), Normal traffic is reportedly 17k flights per day - so this works out to an average of 30 tons of Green House Gases created each flight. I don't want to be a negative Nelly on this, but I don't think there is an aircraft flying that even carries 30 tons of fuel. So am getting this right, that these environmentalists are claiming in essence, that Aircraft are creating matter?

Looks like yet another exagerrated claim from the Global Warming Chicken littles. I'm all ears am I way off base here?

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE63J0MV.htm

[Reic]

Well, on a long flight planes use maybe 40,000lbs of fuel, which is 20 tons.

Its possible

[skinfan133]

erm, don't volcanic eruptions produce the majority green-house gases? I could be wrong, but I though volcanic activity accounted for the vast majority of all green house gas output on earth...

[HighOnHendrix]

erm, don't volcanic eruptions produce the majority green-house gases? I could be wrong, but I though volcanic activity accounted for the vast majority of all green house gas output on earth...

Even if it's not the majority of output, the increase from the volcano would almost have to balance out the decrease from less flights. Seems likely to be a wash to me. The thing to remember here is that it's not whether your claim is right or wrong, it's to get it into the media so people think about your "cause".

[Enter Apotheosis]

They claim 510,000 tons of Green House Gases are emmitted by aircraft over Europe everyday (of normal operations), Normal traffic is reportedly 17k flights per day - so this works out to an average of 30 tons of Green House Gases created each flight. I don't want to be a negative Nelly on this, but I don't think there is an aircraft flying that even carries 30 tons of fuel. So am getting this right, that these environmentalists are claiming in essence, that Aircraft are creating matter?

Looks like yet another exagerrated claim from the Global Warming Chicken littles. I'm all ears am I way off base here?

A quick search turned up the following...

Eurocontrol said about 50 per cent of Europe''s 27,000 daily flights resumed their operation yesterday.

Source: http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20100421/372/tbs-european-flights-resume-after-six-da.html

and

A plane like a Boeing 747 uses approximately 1 gallon of fuel (about 4 liters) every second.

Source: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm

and

Jet fuel emits 21.0 lbs of CO2 per gallon burned.

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html

So to crunch some numbers:

510,000 tons of greenhouse gas/27,000 flights = ~19 tons/flight

If we assume that a reasonable average flight time is 1.5 hours...

1.5 hours/flight * 3600 seconds/hour = 5400 seconds/flight

5400 seconds/flight * 1 gallon fuel/second = 5400 gallons fuel/flight

5400 gallons fuel/flight * 21 lbs CO2/gallon fuel = 113,400 lbs CO2/flight

113,400 lbs CO2/flight * 1 ton CO2/2000 pounds CO2 = 56.7 tons CO2/flight

56.7 tons CO2/flight * 27,000 flights = 1,530,900 tons of CO2

The flight time was obviously pulled from thin air but I think it's reasonable enough. The real key as to why my numbers ended up so much larger than the ones in the article is probably that not every plane is a Boeing 747 carrying 500 people. Smaller planes and lower passenger loads would substantially reduce the total. Either way, the figure seems pretty damn reasonable to me just from that napkin math.

erm, don't volcanic eruptions produce the majority green-house gases? I could be wrong, but I though volcanic activity accounted for the vast majority of all green house gas output on earth...

The entire point of the article is that we put out more CO2 than an erupting volcano on a daily basis.

[PeterMP]

I love when people that have NO CLUE what they are talking about make posts claiming other people are wrong.

For simplicity, 6.0X10^23 molecules of methane weighs about 16 grams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Combustion

Its combustion will produce 6.02X10^23 of CO2, which weighs about 44 grams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

For the same reasons, 1 ton of combusted jet fuel DOES NOT equal 1 ton of CO2 produced.

[nonniey]

I love when people that have NO CLUE what they are talking about make posts claiming other people are wrong.

For simplicity, 6.0X10^23 molecules of methane weighs about 16 grams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Combustion

Its combustion will produce 6.02X10^23 of CO2, which weighs about 44 grams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

For the same reasons, 1 ton of combusted jet fuel DOES NOT equal 1 ton of CO2 produced.

Yep I didn't have a clue on this, but then I indicated just that with the question mark and admitting I was tired when I posted it. Did I I claim anyone was wrong? I did think 30 tons per flight looked flakey and the global warming crowds reputation for exagerration got my suspicions going. Before returning to this thread I looked up the amount of fuel a 747 can carry, it is well above 30 tons. I was surprised by that and the statistics posted above and learned something new. Thanks.

[@DCGoldPants]

When this Volcano 1st started going on.....there were a few scientist saying that if enough ash/gunk was shot into the sky and ended up blocking a lot of sunlight for an extended period of time....we could cool a little on Earth. Not saying you need the entire sky covered and we go into an ice age. But apparently this happened back arouind 400-600 years ago where for a year, the temps dropped and it was the same time as a huge erruption.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-19/icelandic-volcano-falls-short-of-weather-changing-pinatubo.html

Suppose they think it wasn't big enough to do it this time.

Guess in the long run, that could be good for the VERY REAL global warming.

[PeterMP]

erm, don't volcanic eruptions produce the majority green-house gases? I could be wrong, but I though volcanic activity accounted for the vast majority of all green house gas output on earth...

The right wing, misinformation, already thoroughly debunked, talking points are strong in this thread.

[nonniey]

I fixed the thread title.

[PeterMP]

Yep I didn't have a clue on this, but then I indicated just that with the question mark and admitting I was tired when I posted it. Did I I claim anyone was wrong? I did think 30 tons per flight looked flakey and the global warming crowds reputation for exagerration got my suspicions going. Before returning to this thread I looked up the amount of fuel a 747 can carry, it is well above 30 tons. I was surprised by that and the statistics posted above and learned something new. Thanks.

The problem is that you didn't indicate that you didn't have clue. You indicated that you thought you knew enough to say they might be wrong, but you weren't sure for different reasons (e.g. you were tired).

There's a difference between saying I don't really understand how this can be, is it right, and I think this is wrong.

You did the last not the first.

[Larry]

OK all, it's late so maybe my math is way off. The story linked below claimed that the cancellation of Flights in Europe was benificial to the environment because of the reduction in the amount of Green House Gases emitted by aircraft.

They claim 510,000 tons of Green House Gases are emmitted by aircraft over Europe everyday (of normal operations), Normal traffic is reportedly 17k flights per day - so this works out to an average of 30 tons of Green House Gases created each flight. I don't want to be a negative Nelly on this, but I don't think there is an aircraft flying that even carries 30 tons of fuel. So am getting this right, that these environmentalists are claiming in essence, that Aircraft are creating matter?

1) Aircraft burn fuel and air.

2) And there other sources of pollution associated with those flights. (Ground equipment, cars driving to the airport, people farting in the seat next to you, . . . )

[Corcaigh]

Global Warming Chicken littles.

A biased mind and a total lack of knowledge are a bad combination.

[nonniey]

The problem is that you didn't indicate that you didn't have clue. You indicated that you thought you knew enough to say they might be wrong, but you weren't sure for different reasons (e.g. you were tired).

There's a difference between saying I don't really understand how this can be, is it right, and I think this is wrong.

You did the last not the first.

Ah one of those types that can't take yes for an answer.