By Steven Goddard
Yesterday WUWT reported on the inaccurate #1 environmental story at Guardian.
The Guardian article originally read :
The volcanic eruption has released carbon dioxide, but the amount is dwarfed by
the savings. Based on readings taken by scientists during the first phase of
Eyjafjallajokull activity last month, the website Information is Beautiful
calculated the volcano has emitted about 15,000 tonnes of CO2 each day.
After their article was written, more accurate information spread across the web – The Guardian numbers were off by more than an order of magnitude :
Experts said on Monday that the volcano in Iceland is emitting 150,000 to 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure comparable to emissions released from a small industrial nation.
The Guardian responded by updating their article with better numbers, but failed to update their conclusions:
So what is wrong with their correction? Lots of things.
- Their source of information now claims that the numbers are 206,465 tons saved vs. 150,000 tons emitted by the volcano. Those two numbers are well within the margin of error of the volcano estimates, and are the very low end of what scientists are claiming. If we use the average scientific estimate of 225,000 – the volcano was actually producing more CO2 per day than the savings from grounded aircraft. Yet the Guardian story still claims that emissions are dwarfed by the savings.
- The Guardian story claims that there have been 2.8 million tons of savings, and the math doesn’t work out. At the time the story was written there had been six days of grounded flights. 206,465 tons/day X 6 days = 1.2 million tons, not 2.8 million tons.
- The Guardian failed to research the actual volcano estimates, and again published the very low end numbers from an apparently unreliable source.
- They failed to consider that the eruption has been going on for more than a month, while the flight ban has lasted only six days. Total volcano emissions actually dwarf the savings from the aircraft.
- They failed to consider Anthony’s point that people stranded by grounded aircraft seek other means of transportation, including cars, trains and battleships, etc. The BBC estimated that these other modes of transport generate as much CO2 as the planes would have.
- They failed to consider that the airlines will eventually run extra flights in order to catch up.
The evidence indicates that the net balance from the volcano is a large increase in CO2 emissions. The Guardian article was just Plane Stupid.
Furthermore, we know that plants, soil and the oceans generate 30 times as much CO2 as all fossil fuel burning combined. That is 200,000,000,000 tons of CO2 per year from natural sources, compared with The Guardian’s inaccurate claim of 2,800,000 tons in savings from aircraft grounded. In other words, even their exaggerated claimed savings are less than 0.0014% of all natural emissions of CO2.
Numbers from Woods Hole Institute
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Don’t ya just love good solid mathematics!
Bill Derryberry
Excellent rebuttal. So simple, so effective, so beyond the grasp of a Guardian journalist.
Don’t these newspapers have Ombudsmen to look into complaints about misleading data? If they did they should be contacted and asked to investigate, if they are found in error the Ombudsman enforces the paper to correct the information in a conspicuous retraction.
Specious sources would, in my opinion, include Woods Hole Institute.
Doug in Seattle (20:32:34) :
One thing for sure, Woods Hole is not going to intentionally exaggerate natural CO2 emissions.
“The Guardian story claims that there have been 2.8 million tons of savings, and the math doesn’t work out. At the time the story was written there had been six days of grounded flights. 206,465 tons/day X 6 days = 1.2 million tons, not 2.8 million tons.”
I calculate that for 5.5 days of grounded flights aircraft related emissions would be reduced by between 2 and 2.9m tonnes for CO2 (depending on what figures are used). I even think these figures are optimistic. Given 29,000 flights/day and average sector length of 2hrs and an average consumption of 4 tonnes/hr I suspect the higher end of the range seems more realistic.
However, due to the lack of infrastructure between the endpoints as well as the highly scalable and flexible nature of aviation, as a total package aviation is the most efficient means of transport on Earth. As you say, rescuing people with ships, cars and trains (that run empty most of the day) is going to cost more.
Actually, this one does not. The Guardian is in the process of appointing a new Reader’s Editor.
Sadly, most journalists are innumerate. Even publications in their own field say journalists should never be allowed alone, in a room, with numbers. Remember, most are English or journalism majors and self chose those fields, in part, because they did not like thinking mathematically. Journalism schools teach reporters to try and edit out as many numbers as possible – which often results in articles that are sheer gibberish.
As of the 2005-2006 academic year, the Accrediting Council for Journalism and Mass Communications Schools adopted its first ever math recommendation that “graduates should … be able to” “apply basic numerical and statistical concepts”. This means basic arithmetic, percentages, averages and that is about it.
Consequently, journalists typically embarrass themselves when presented with numbers.
Tony (20:49:49) :
Did you consider in your calculations that at least 40% of EU flights proceeded normally during the last week? Britain is not the entire EU.
stevengoddard (20:37:25) : — Doug in Seattle (20:32:34) : One thing for sure, Woods Hole…
Side note: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution — Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory.
There is a world of difference that is easy to miss in a cursory glance. Think: mistletoe; the common name for a group of hemi-parasitic plants that grow attached to and within the branches of a tree or shrub. Or perhaps leech?
Doug in Seattle (20:32:34) :
> Specious sources would, in my opinion, include Woods Hole Institute.
The what? I don’t think there is an organization by that name, so I guess that makes anything from them specious. Maybe.
There’s the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution a respected scientific institution my brother-in-law graduated from, and there’s the Woods Hole Research Center, an activist research group focused on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) and We seek to conserve and sustain the planet’s vegetation, soils, water, and climate by clarifying and communicating their interacting functions in support of human well-being and by promoting practical approaches to their management in the human interest.
Please be more explicit when you refer to one of the several research organizations at Woods Hole. (Others are the Marine Biological Laboratory, a part of the National Fisheries, and a small part of USGS on the WHOI campus.)
Doug in Seattle (20:32:34) : “Specious sources would, in my opinion, include Woods Hole Institute.”
Your opinion would be misinformed. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, which is well respected, has been around since January 6, 1930.
You may be thinking of “The Woods Hole Research Center,” which is a Warmist organization started roughly in 1989. There is some confusion about the “Woods Hole” name and reputation, perhaps deliberately. There is no disclaimer on the Woods Hole Research Center home page regarding the fact that they are not connected to WHOI.
Math can be so simplistic in its brilliance.
“Eyjafjallajokull,” on the other hand….gimme an abbreviation….something….anything….
Green journalism is the new yellow journalism.
Is it not also true that, while the flight ban is now lifted, the CO2 is still pouring out? Will they continue to update their figures until Eyjafjallajokull stops erupting?
To defend the Grauniad, I got the same result intially based on the SO2 data and the typical SO2/CO2 ratio, and building upon the estimates of the emissions during the first eruption in March. It just happened that the April eruption was bigger at least by one order of magnitude.
I still think it’s fair to say that the “saved” CO2 emissions from the airplanes are comparable to the CO2 emitted by the volcano in the same time – and both of them are negligible. Their effect on the climate is not really worth taking about because it’s in microkelvins.
Wish we didn’t have the “decline” here in Sunny Southern California. Its been a cold, cloudy and windy spring. Today tied the record low maximum temperature ever measured in Laguna Beach:
LAGUNA BEACH 59F 59F IN 1945 SINCE 1928
“AEGeneral (21:23:55) :
Math can be so simplistic in its brilliance.
“Eyjafjallajokull,” on the other hand….gimme an abbreviation….something….anything….”
A volcano on Iceland.
That Guy (22:02:45) :
Exactly. The eruption could go on for months. The volcano doesn’t stop emitting CO2, because Heathrow opened back up.
However, Plane Stupid thinks that opening up the third runway will cause the end of life as we know it on this planet.
@AEGeneral (21:23:55) :
>>“Eyjafjallajokull,” on the other hand….gimme an abbreviation….something….anything….<<
Eyjafjallajokull = Are ya feeling loco?
Eyjafjallajokull = Eyes fill a skull full
Eyjafjallajokull = Ah we're all fulla jokes, y'all
My semi-phonetic translation of Eyjafjallajokull suggests it means a profane curse to all not local.
According to the USGS, Hot Spot volcanoes (like Iceland) produce huge amounts of CO2. Kilauea produces more CO2 than H2O.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
AEGeneral (21:23:55) :
“Eyjafjallajokull,” on the other hand….gimme an abbreviation….something….anything….
Why certainly. Eyjafjallajokull = an eye full of joe cool.
AEGeneral (21:23:55) :
““Eyjafjallajokull,” on the other hand….gimme an abbreviation….something….anything….”
Ancient Norse/Icelandic isn’t my strong side, but here is my suggestion:
“Eyjafjallajokull” – pronounced “eya-fialla-yoecull”
Anglofication – “Island-Mountain-Glacier”
Any Icelanders around to confirm this?
During the BBC Radio 5 [April 22] at around 03:35 BST the same Grauniad figures were quoted by a Doctor Karl/Rhod Sharp as evidence of the drop in CO2 production with all EU aircraft grounded.
The usual BBC progress.