Source: Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission | Science Also: Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag A new study published in the journal Sciencelinks Arctic sea ice loss to cumulative CO2 emissions in the atmosphere through a simple linear relationship (Figure 6). Researchers conducting the study, including NSIDC scientist Julienne Stroeve, examined this linear relationship based on observations from the satellite and pre-satellite era since 1953, and in climate models. The observed relationship is equivalent to a loss of 3 square meters (32 square feet) for every metric ton of CO2 added to the atmosphere, compared the average from all the climate models of 1.75 square meters (19 square feet). This smaller value, or lower sensitivity, from the models is consistent with findings that the models tend to be generally conservative relative to observations in regard to how fast the Arctic has been losing its summer ice cover. The observed rate of ice loss per metric ton of CO2 allows individuals to more easily grasp their contribution to Arctic sea ice loss. Well now we know or at least have a rule of thumb. So let's see: About 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol. About 22.38 pounds of CO2 are produced from burning a gallon of diesel fuel. So given ~2,200 lbs/metric ton, this suggests ~112 gallons . . . ~10 Prius tanks or about 5,000 miles. Bob Wilson
The quote says 3 m2 = 32 ft2. My calc is 32.67 ft2 which might be rounded to 33. Thread title says 39. ??? As Prius and Chevy Suburbans (for examples) burn unit fuel to same unit CO2, you could relabel the gallons counter to 3.4 square feet of Arctic sea ice. Make little trollish stickers to put on fuel pumps. That would be vandalism. Maybe happy words like "Arctic shipping thanks you for helping" would help avoid prosecution.
Ouch! I can't fix the title, too much time. Call it a lazy finger moment. I've asked the moderators for a little help. IMHO, we can safely round up the area due to: (1) soot; (2) combustion cooling and heat; (3) bow wave mechanical effects. Uhhh, I like the motto, "Arctic shipping thanks you." Bob Wilson
Sea lions thank you also. Nothing worse coming up an air hole to breathe and having a polar bear smiling down.
Article authors (Dirk Notz and Julienne Stroeve) must be pretty smooth operators. Their Fig. 2 is appropriate for a Geography 101 textbook, not 30 square inches of “Science”! But OK, now everybody knows we are talking about 185 to 205 w/m2 yr of direct insolation. Which is not 'radiation', either! I'm just dragging them through it to assert that Science editor and reviewers had their own lazy fingers. Make Bob feel better. Because actually, I feel better. Arctic sea being iced is a late leftover from previous glacial, not soon to be repeated. Polar bears have quite overstepped their bounds. Should (and will) return to being terrestrial predators like others of their genus. Sic semper uppityness. +++ The real challenge here is for other smooth operators to relate 'our cumulative burn' to other tangible things. Those are not for me to decide.
OK, Bob. I am confused. A gallon of gasoline weighing 8 lbs. produces almost 20 lbs. of CO2? I am confused. I found the answer. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentIncludes/co2_inc.htm
