One day’s flights in 72 seconds

I must confess, not looking at the numbers or anything, I have always mentally dismissed the impact of air travel on humanity’s carbon footprint. But looking at the very cool video below my impression is a bit different!

Notice how the day-night terminator moves through the scene:

Anyone know where I could find a down-loadable, high resolution version of that?

[UPDATE] Thanks to Patrick in the comments: “Hi-Quality Versions available here, right at the Source:

7 thoughts on “One day’s flights in 72 seconds

  1. So the Europeans will be burning coal and wood to make up for the lack of Russian gas, then, if they have any money left, they will have to pay carbon taxes to fight global warming, all the while that they are freezing their butts off.

    They are running their ice breakers for the first time in 12 years. Interesting, isn’t it.

    And oh, it’s not over yet. A new La Nina is brewing in the Pacific while the Hadley center is predicting that 2009 will be one of the 5 warmest years in history.

    So Coby, I’m betting that it won’t be one of the 5 warmest years in history, according to the Hadley Centers own numbers. Wanna make a little wager? I mean with PDO now in a negative phase and another La Nina cooking, the Hadley people are surely driven by wishful thinking.

    I hear that you Canadians have had some interesting weather of your own in Saskatoon. 24 days where the temp went to -25C or colder.


  2. Hi Tilo,

    I’m not interested in bets about weather. Where 2009 ranks historically is not an interesting or significant question.

    I will happily bet you about virtually any 9yr mean period you wish to choose. How about I bet you that the 9yr mean global temperature centered on 2005 will be higher than the 9yr global mean temperature centered on 1995? I would even give you 2-1 odds. We could center it on 1998 and 2008 even, though it would mean waiting until 2012 for a verdict.

    I didn’t know about Saskatoon, but Vancouver has had some crazy weather, almost three weeks of snow on the ground, with heavy snowfall after heavy snowfall! But come on, that’s weather.


  3. “I’m not interested in bets about weather. ”

    Hmm. With Hadley and Hansen both making annual predictions, I wonder what their interest in “the weather” is. And I wonder if they base their predictions on their climate models or on weather models.

    Concering your bets, eh, we are talking mostly old and in the books data here Cory. But I’ll take a bet for the 9 year 1998 mean period versus the 2008 mean period that says we do not show the .2C decadal rise that the IPCC says we should see. In fact, I’ll spot you about 25% or .05C. So if we show more that .15C rise for the periods you win. If not, I win.

    I believe that the increase in CO2 cause warming. But I think that the IPCC climate sensitivity number is too high.

    “But come on, that’s weather.”

    True. But combine enough weather and you get climate. Also, look at all of the so called climate scientists that claimed we were warming even faster than anticipated based soely on the 2007 Arctic melt off. It seems that the AGW proponents want to have it both ways.


  4. Well, Hadley and Hansen have professional interest in weather processes and climate processes, so I am sure it is educational to try to predict. I expect no one tries to predict the weather with a climate model.

    As for the bet, I thought you expected cooling? Let me think about a bet on how much warming there will be, I don’t think I would give you odds on the terms you laid out but it may still be an attractive offer.

    “look at all of the so called climate scientists that claimed we were warming even faster than anticipated based soely on the 2007 Arctic melt off.”

    I would be interested in some specific references for this.


  5. I have a 20MB .wmv of the thing that gives at least full screen, accessible at the following address:
    (it will stay online as long as downloads take place).
    username: anonymous
    password: air1traffic

    You may need to decipher a bit of french, but it should work.


  6. Hi-Quality Versions available here, right at the Source:

    (MOV-Version is much better, WMV-Version “pumps” every second and has artefacts from recompression)

    [Why can’t people name the Source if they post the Videos on YouTube? Just so more people watch their downsampled version?]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s