In this paper, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution at Stanford University, and Martin Hoffert of New York University calculate that:
over time, the burning of carbon heats the Earth about 100,000 times more through the trapping of outgoing longwave radiation than it does by direct heating through the release of chemical energy. In other words, when we burn carbon and release CO2 to the atmosphere, only 0.001 % of the total warming comes directly from the release of chemical energy during burning. The remaining 99.999 % of the warming is associated with the trapping of outgoing longwave radiation by that CO2 in the atmosphere.
Over at Climate Progress, Joseph Romm quotes a former lead engineer at Princeton Plasma Physics Lab who puts those numbers in perspective:
running a handheld electric hairdryer on US grid electricity delivers a planet-warming punch comparable to [the heat given off by] two Boeing 747s operating at full takeoff power for the same time period. The warming is delivered over time, not promptly, but that don’t matter; the planetary heating is accrued, the accountants would say, the moment you hit the switch.
So, as you fly across the globe in a 747 its worth having this image in your mind, that you are helping deliver warming to the planet equivalent to 100,000 other 747s flying at the same time.
Not a great gift for the grandkids.
Better tell John Travolta to keep his private jet hangered and to stay away from Copenhagen. Better still, cancel the whole time wasting fiasco.
“So, as you fly across the globe in a 747 its worth having this image in your mind, that you are helping deliver warming to the planet equivalent to 100,000 other 747s flying at the same time.”
Huh? Does this even make sense? You could substitute “car” for “747″, thereby proving pointless your “true cost of flying” assertion, but would that make any more sense? What is your point? Who would even think that the warming effects of fuel burning come from the heat of combustion? This is a very, very strange post.
Dave
Of course you can substitute ‘car’ for ‘747′. Which also makes the point that in our present predicament even a non-essential car trip isnt a great idea. Its just that 747s are a lot bigger than cars. Think of them as very very large trucks if you want.
Not sure what you mean by “Who would even think that the warming effects of fuel burning come from the heat of combustion?” – I am not suggesting that at all. I am just adopting Caldeira’s calculation that the total warming from CO2 over its lifetime in the atmosphere is 100,000 times the heat generated in the initial release of the CO2. Is that not clear?
Tom
Извиняюсь, но это не совсем то, что мне нужно….
In other words, […….
Мне нравится эта идея, я полностью с Вами согласен….
In other words, […….