After three versions and much discussion, here’s the latest, corrected version of the answer.
Data here: http://bit.ly/planevolcano
UPDATE 3 – 20th April – : More new info and some shame for us. According to leading geologists, Eyjafjallajoekull is emitting between “150,000 and 300,000″ tons of CO2 a day (source). Despite the attentions of the Icelandic vulcanologists and detailed research, our calculations were apparently off by a factor to 10. Many apologies for this error. The volcano *is* belching huge gobs of CO2 into the atmos. Arguably, still less than the amount that would’ve been emitted by the grounded planes. We’ve corrected the diagram. Thanks to all the commenters who helped us refine and correct our calcs.
UPDATE 2 – 18th April -: We’ve been sent some new figures from the Nordic Volcanological Institute of the University of Iceland (thanks Nicole!). They’ve measured the CO2:SO2 ratio as 5:1 (source). So Eyjafjallajoekull is emitting an estimated 15,000 tons of CO2 a day – twice our original estimate. We’ve updated the diagram accordingly.
UPDATE 1 – April 17th – : A few people have asked so here’s how we estimated the CO2 emissions of Eyjafjallajoekull.
We couldn’t find a direct CO2 emissions figure for the icelandic volcano but we did find an emissions figure for Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) – 3,000 tons a day (Source)
When Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991, it emitted 42 million tons of CO2 (source) and 17 million tons of SO2 (source). That’s a CO2-to-SO2 ratio of 2.47:1
Applying that ratio to the 3,000 tons of SO2 emitted by Eyjafjallajoekull gives us the figure of 7,412 tons of CO2 per day.
Clearly, this is a ballpark figure and it’s likely to be more complex. If any vulcanologists are passing by and would like to enhance or correct our numbers, please help yourselves to the data!
155 Comments
Yeah, nice idea but alas totally misleading. No sulfur or methane, for example. Volcanoes are thought to have caused a runaway greenhouse effect before. And then there are the effects of the toxins. But a pretty graphic!
This is a very good point !
To make it starker you could tell us what 206,465 tons of CO2 represent (eg by comparing it to another source of emission, for example the daily CO2 emissions in Africa, or sth).
And visually, I would have used another color than black for the CO2 saved ;)
What about the HF production of the volcano? Back to burning up the Ozone instead.
Love this – amazing how it takes a natural disaster to illustrate an unnatural disaster.
This would make a great poster. Any chance ?
Your estimate is in the right order of magnitude, off by a factor of 2.
On the webpage of the Nordic Volcanological Institute of the University of Iceland (http://www2.norvol.hi.is/page/IES-EY-CEMCOM) you can find the compositions of the volcanic gases released by Eyjafjallajokull early April. The CO2:SO2 ratio was 5:1 (15% CO2 by mole in the volcanic gases, 3% SO2), with approx. 3000t SO2 per day – that is, 15000t CO2/day – so the little triangle on your illustration should have a surface about twice its actual size.
[Brilliant! Thank you! I'll edit the image. David]
And you can transport yourself from A to B with a volcano? New stuff…come on!
The people that made this graph based their estimate on ratios of emissions from Mount Pinatubo eruptions in 1991. Mount Pinatubo is located on a convergent tectonic boundary. Mount Eyjafjallajökull is located on a divergent tectonic boundary. The emissions characteristics for these two volcanoes will be rather different.
What about the cooling effects of the ash itself? I know that’s probably far too complex a calculation to make it into this image, but I find it interesting/scary that we are witnessing what amounts to a geoengineering demo project.
This graph seems unauthoritative at best. It seems like a ballpark guess from total amateurs. How could it be that Mt. Pinatubo belched out 42 million tons when it erupted, as your source info says, but this massive eruption in Iceland is supposed to be emitting a mere 15,000 tons per day? That would put this eruption, which is causing chaos across the entire Northeast Atlantic, at a tiny fraction of the output of Mt. Pinatubo. I don’t buy it.
[Pintabuo belched 42 million tons in a year, around 115,000 a day - David]
We are not practical in our assumptions regarding the role volcanos play in the release of carbon and other gasses..Volcanos play the major role in the release of carbon and sulfer gases….
To make a real case against the polluting airplane industry, I would propose to add again another triangle for the extra emissions coming from the current substitution of airplane traffic with trains, cars or busses. If this triangle would be much smaller than the black one of CO2 saved, than this would be a good way to promote increasingly the use of trains/ cars instead of planes. It would also highlight the need to finally tax airplane fuels as well…while making the use of trains more affordable.
Most probably there are many other advantages as well, like the joice of not having to suffer the noises coming from airplanes or of making people think twice before doing a little weekend trip by plane..
SO2 is a greenhouse gas, as well as CO2 – the sulphur dioxide molecule will reflect infrared by the same mechanism as the CO2 molecule, with a frequency shift due to the greater mass of sulphur compared to carbon. e.g. you should not divide by five, but count CO2+SO2 as greenhouse emissions.?
Hello,
Can you help me out with the source of the CO2 emission data for the European Union? I read the BBC article over and over again, and all I could see was the “3% of total EU emissions” statement. However, nowhere does the article actually state the raw number that is provided in the table.I assume the information on the total number for the EU emissions came from somewhere else, and I did search but I could not find the relevant information. The closest one I could get was press release of EUROPA (link), which is probably based on industrial numbers, and yet 3% of that number comes up twice as little as the one in the table. I am not questioning the validity of the data in your graph, but merely asking for help on the source. Thank you.
[Hi. Sure. It's here http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european-community-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2009/ Linked in the Google doc too. David]
I hate graphics like this. It proves very little. Just to add to the graph, did you know on average the population of the UK produces 800,000 tonnes of Co2 a day just by breathing. Maybe we should do something about this as well !!!!
[The figure for breathing I think is actually around 35,000 tons a day. See here: http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/ - Thanks! David]
This is true, but then again, people need to fly. They need to visit their family and friends across the world. Even though this may be true, people have to use planes to get to where they need to. This is misleading.
Nice Work.
What would happen if you flipped the graph upside down?
When it comes to thinking about ecological issues and other issues, we often confuse what is good and not so good, having ‘negative things’ going up on the positive side of the y-axis of a graph. I think this can be confusing.
I get the colours of black and red illustrate that the red is ‘bad’ or not good in terms of climate emissions.
What would happen if we displayed information with the good things pointing up on the positive y axis?
Cheers,
Carl
For all those wondering, SO2 does NOT cause the same greenhouse effect as CO2, in fact quite the opposite, SO2 causes cooling. In the short term, single eruptions like this are more likely to cause lowering of temperatures than rising – such as after the eruption of Mt Pinatubo in 1991 (although this eruption is too small and too high-latitude to effect global climate)
Eh, who wants to deal with the inconveniences of air travel these days anyway. The volcano did us a favor. Try a nice, leisurely trans-Atlantic cruise.
What about with the co2 emission sourced by the additional using of cars (car rental owner like sixt are totally happy actually). This must change the shown gap, or?
how wonderfull visualization! like it…
The graph is seriously misleading.
1 Pinatubo belched out 42m tonnes /year. Did this affect the climate long term? of course not, just another natural event and the Iceland eruption will have no effect whatsoever long term.
2 The Warmists claimed that the airspace lockdown following 9/11 caused a rise in average temperatures because of the lack of contrails! Will they claim this for Europe? They will now.
3 I notice that as usual, it’s all estimates and contradictory data from different sources. The Warmists and the ecoloons really don’t have a clue what, if anything, is happening.
4 Arizona and Harry, bang on!!
Nice – but I think it might mislead people a bit. Try doing it against average aviation annual emissions for the last 5 years, and the savings are a tiny blip. It’s not rocket science, but each week they are shut down will be a 2% cut this year. The recession caused a much bigger fall off than that, and some decent aviation policies could replicate a 3 or 4% cut every year.
@Nicole, the COâ‚‚:SOâ‚‚ fration cited is per mole (in other words the count of molecules), not per mass. SOâ‚‚ molecules are 2.29x heavier than COâ‚‚ so the ratio is indeed something like 2.2. (All assuming that the gas composition is the same as it was pre-eruption, about which I really have no idea.)
Another nice illustration. Bravo.
It is amusing but sad that a few contributors (many I suspect with a background in climate change denial/indifference) feel the need to undermine your work without themselves having any expertise in the area.
I don’t understand your graphic. Am I supposed to read the height of the triangles, or the area? It seems designed to be ambiguous.
Don’t forget the coolling effect of contrails – their absence was particularly noticeable in Southern England yesterday. I have rarely seen such a clear azure blue sky here.
Has anyone figured out what the time scale is. Is the 344,109 tons by the aviation industry an annual figure? Compared to what a volcano has done in a number of days? This graph seems to be missing some key information. Perhaps it would be better to take the graph down until all the data has been collected and then think about the most accurate way to show it.
Nothing more frustrating than seeing speculative charts created using only partial data to push an agenda. That’s the kind of pop science that got climate change into trouble in the first place.
[I think you may have missed the subtitle of the image: "per day" - Thanks! David]
I think this is very misleading
What countries were included/excluded from this figure (Aircraft C02)? (Obviously some has to, because not the whole of Europe is shut down at the moment).
I also think that all the aerosols, particulates and other materials entering the atmosphere should also be recorded here. (Sulphur Dioxide, Hydrogen Fluoride, Carbon Monoxide, Carbon Dioxide, Hydrogen Sulphide).
Once that is done, then a fair, unbiased report would be generated.
“Don’t forget the coolling effect of contrails”
Actually, aircraft contrails are thought to cause warming. Look it up, I won’t argue with you about it. But don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.
The longer this goes off, the more cooling we will see. The reduced CO2 emissions will have nothing to do with it, as this small reduction in CO2 increase won’t cause cooling per the AGW conjecture, only less warming.
In 1783, when this area went off, the cooling was so pronounced that the Mississippi froze over that winter as far south as New Orleans. Famine killed untold numbers of people, and remember that then, people weren’t as dependent on “just in time” delivery of food, most people had their own stores of self grown food.
As for geoengineering, this just illustrates the dangers. What if we had vented all kinds of SO2 into the stratosphere to cool the planet, then this happened and we plunged into another Little Ice Age? Death tolls would be in the billions.
Just wondering which one of mans industries truelly does the most damage to our atmosphere? Is aviation the largest contributer across the globe? Which industries do we need to develop new technologies to combat this issue?
Very intersting article, will have to read more over the source of information! :)
So Kevin thinks the contrails cool, the scientists in the US think they raise temp. I rest my case, they have no idea and Martin actually admits this. We are tiny and insignificant on this planet. We have no effect. We can no more wreck it than save it. Just when are the ecoloons going to admit it.
The total CO2 from normal activities seems way too high. A 747 consumes about 10 tons of fuel per hour of flight. That should will turn into about 35 tons/hr of CO2 (12 lbs of Carbon converts to 44 lbs of Carbon Dioxide). Are there the equivalent of 1,000 747s in the air over a 24 hr period, each flying for 10 hrs?
Someone mentioned SO2 as a greenhouse gas. SO2 has a recidence time of a few days in the atmosphere. I.e. it does not travel very far and does not stay in the atmosphere long enough to actually promote a global warming effect – even if the radiation capture capacity were similar to CO2. Sulphur aerosols have been found to have a cooling effect. But still, with the dust involved in cooling, this just postpones global warming and does not really make a difference in the long run.
If you do the math, this is about a 2% reduction in the EU’s total daily CO2 emissions. Overall (w/o Iceland, which isn’t in the EU), a continuation would by itself fulfill close to half of the EU’s remaining Kyoto commitment for 2012. So, there is a silver lining. (Info from Wikipedia.)
think it sounds easier than it is to make the comparison in this way, but the meaning is incredible. we should find a way to avoid this shit and be more aware what to use and when
This is a gross under estimation of the CO2 output of the volcano and the type of pseudo science that gives those like me, who believe in climate change, a bad name, and also hands a get out of jail free card to the anti climate change groups.
The main problem is that this data is based on SO2 data from between 1-2 April, two weeks before the main eruption that is causing the disruption. Therefore what you have done is compared airline CO2 to the background CO2 produced by the volcano, and not the vastly larger CO2 output that is attached to the eruption that has grounded the flights.
@Jack M I’ll check the data you mention. But I’m not sure our estimate is as flawed as you make out. Mount Pintaubo emitted 42 million tons of CO2 over a year when it erupted in 1991. That’s around 115,000 tons a day. And it was the second biggest volcanic eruption of the 20th century. Volcano Eyjafjallajoekull is substantially smaller than Pintaubo. Kilauea, one of the most active volcanos in the world, emits around 9,000 tons a day (3.3 million a year according to the USGS ). So even if we’re off the mark, we’re in the common sense ballpark. Thanks! David.
SO2 data from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) is posted at http://sites.google.com/site/iavceirscweb/eruptions/eyja. The 3-4 kt SO2 number was a total measurement on April 15, not truly a daily rate (implying it continues) as has been reported, but the amount emitted to that point. A later explosion had no SO2 detected (see discussion under April 17). It doesn’t invalidate the interesting comparison, but limits the comparison to that one day.
[Thanks for the info. Very helpful! David]
Good stuff – but it would be a lot more informative really if it coupled this with estimates of overall heating/cooling… will the dust from the volcano cancel out the warming effect of the CO2? How will the effects of any CO2 or other greenhouse gases released compare with aeroplane emissions if you take into account altitude and water vapour? A stock estimate for the total radiative forcing of planes is around 2-3 times what their CO2 emissions alone would imply…
Thanks for this info, I was thinking in doing this calculations myself and while researching for data I found this! Awesome xD!
Someone else made a good point to about the cooling effect of the ashes but I suposse those kind of radiation forcing calculations are complex
In reply to al miller about the frequency of flights, I live in SE London and get a plane overhead every two minutes between about 05:30 and 23:00, so about 500 a day, mostly to or from Heathrow and City airport. So the equivalent of 1000 747s in the air over Europe for 10 hours every day doesn’t seem unreasonable.
As I said earlier, you guys did your best but you are total amateurs. Nice try. Here is the real data on the daily emissions from this mountain:
“Iceland’s Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day, a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy, experts said on Monday.”
from http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8cc536b2db245bb0c34359dccb86d29a.161&show_article=1.
If the link doesn’t work go http://www.drudgereport.com and click on the link, “150,000 to 300,000 tons per day.”
“Are there the equivalent of 1,000 747s in the air over a 24 hr period, each flying for 10 hrs?”
http://flightaware.com/ is tracking 4,912 planes flying over the USA right now.
There is NO way this graph is correct. Who came up with these numbers? What are they based on?
Sorry but I know how the global warming alarmist crowd works…. they LIE about everything to push this junk science.
To bad they never tell people that CO2 is a harmless trace gas that is a benefit to humans… not some gas that will doom us to death.
Graphic is a bit misleading —- Assuming the composition of gas to be the same as in an earlier eruption on an adjacent volcano, “the CO2 flux of Eyjafjoell would be 150,000 tonnes per day,” Colin Macpherson, an Earth scientist at Britain’s University of Durham, said in an email.
Source:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2496278/posts
Yep, thanks all for the latest CO2 figures from Earth scientists. It’s looking like we’ve got the figure wrong by a magnitude of 10… Pie en route to face.
D
Great perspective, neat graphic – accurate or not (common you anal internet forum types, have you ever measured a volcano or jet plane yourself!).
As if photoshop rendered – almost unreal to our generation’s eyes & ears – beautiful unmarked skies to enjoy for a brief while.
Can we not just do that? Enjoy the rare clear sky with rare clear minds? Or must we always colour it/everything with our mental & emotional preferences & opinions!
We see the world the way we are – not how it is.
Did you remember to include the radiative forcing index for aircraft ? At the momnet that is believed to be around 2.5 . See third paragraph from the bottom http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_sr/?src=/climate/ipcc/aviation/064.htm
It’s too bad people can’t just enjoy a beautiful blue sky and that it takes stark figures to make them realize how awful fossil fuels are. If not for the environment, then for a bit of sun and a breath of clear air.
Fossil fuels are awful Michael? What we need to do is make a movie that shows what life would be like WITHOUT fossil fuels. Love how people demonize fossil fuels as they use them everyday to use their computer, get food from their local stores, and on and on.
You might also note from the Breitbart page:
So your aviation value could be higher if that statement is correct.
Later in the same article the authors made some dubious statements, however:
That is only mildly true. Any additional automoblie trips will indeed increase emissions. However travelers switching to ferries or trains will not increse emissions, as those vessels/trains were in all likelihood previously scheduled services and would have run whether there was an ash cloud or not. Any extra trains or boats will add to the CO2 load, but I would think that the number of extra services will be relatively small.
I am very suspicious of those claims. If it did come to pass that there were incresed flights later on, then it would be true. I highly doubt that the airlines would be able to run double the normal number of flights on the affected routes for a week, or whatever the length of the shutdown turns out to be.
Hope you can breath easy soon Europe!