Co2

[TheBigDog]

My current class is Environmental Science (under the Euphemism of Man's Dependence on Nature). This week we are discussing Global Warming. During the discussion I decided to do some math around CO2 emissions and came up with some interesting answers.

 

Total CO2 human CO2 emissions from 1751 through 2004 are listed at TRENDS: CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS. This site puts the total CO2 emissions for this 253 year span with annual details. The sources and details of the methodology are also detailed on the site.

 

I gathered my statistics about the earth's atmosphere at Wiki - Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got statistics about the carbon sink of the ocean also at Wiki - Carbon dioxide sink - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The total atmospheric mass is 5.1352 E18 kg. CO2 makes up 0.0383% of the atmosphere. When adjusting for atomic mass CO2 comprises 0.058% of the mass of the atmosphere, or 2.98546 E15 kg. In the past 150 years the CO2 count has risen from 280 to its current 383 ppm in the earth's atmosphere. That change of 103 ppm is 8.02878 E14 kg of CO2. During the past 253 years we have released into the atmosphere 3.15432 E14 kg of CO2. So the sum of all human CO2 emissions for the past 253 years only equate to 39.3% of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. When factoring in the fact that 33% of human CO2 emissions are absorbed by the oceans that leaves the sum of all human CO2 emissions as only 26.2% of the observed increase in the atmosphere over the past 150 years.

 

So all of this begs the question, where does the other 73.8% of the observed CO2 come from? Since the sum of all human activities are only 26.2% of the observed change, then we should only see atmospheric CO2 of 307. What then is the cause of the other 76 ppm (5.92524 E14 kg) of CO2?

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

Breathing?

Fires?

Volcanoes & friends? Underwater vents ? CO2 from underground (As in NZ)

'Perma'frost melt?

Farting burping cows or is or is that only methane?

Dying phytoplankton?

 

I don't think the oceans will be taking much more CO2 without serious consequences to anything with a calcium coat.

[InfiniteNow]

So the sum of all human CO2 emissions for the past 253 years only equate to 39.3% of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2.

Out of curiosity, what is the sum/percentage if you limit your dataset to the last 30 years?

[TheBigDog]

Breathing?

Fires?

Volcanoes & friends? Underwater vents ? CO2 from underground (As in NZ)

'Perma'frost melt?

Farting burping cows or is or is that only methane?

Dying phytoplankton?

 

I don't think the oceans will be taking much more CO2 without serious consequences to anything with a calcium coat.

I have tried to find the impact of breathing on global CO2, the only thing I can find is that it is negligible. Otherwise we need to either kill of people, or kill off animals to prevent this source.

 

In other threads there has been discussion of fires as a source of CO2. It is argued from one side that it is a huge source of CO2, and from the other side that it is totally offset by the fact that forests renew, and that fossil fuels are an addition since they have been trapped for so many millions of years. It is probably someplace in between the two, but how much does it account for? It the increase of CO2 from fires as bad as all CO2 emissions from fossil fuels?

 

I need to look up the effects of permafrost melt. ???

 

Dying phytoplankton... As the amount of CO2 rises in the ocean, it becomes friendlier for phytoplankton. Also, the ocean has an almost unimaginable ability to absorb CO2, all depending upon the depth that the gas gets to. The mass of the ocean is 1.4 E21 kg. If all the atmospheric carbon were to be added to the ocean it would represent an increase of 2.1 ppm. As the CO2 settles into the ocean it eventually reaches a state of "permanent storage" on the ocean floor and is no longer part of the solution that is the ocean. Phytoplankton have an effect on the short term cycle, more than the long term cycle of the ocean absorbing CO2.

 

Bill

[HydrogenBond]

There is a chicken or the egg argument with respect to CO2 and global warming. If we heat water, the solubility of the CO2 will lower. If the earth was hypothetically heated, by any mechanism besides CO2, the amount of CO2 would increase in the atmosphere, as the CO2 becomes less soluble in the wamer surface water.

 

If CO2 is causing the heat, this should create a heating affect which causes the CO2 to increase in an exculating way. The temperature should be rising faster, or the impact of secondary affects should be much lower than originally calculated if we add the esculation. It is possible what we attribute to man-made affects, is the integrated esculation.

 

One possible implication is that even if humans decrease manmade CO2 by 10%, which would be hard to do, this may only slightly lower the CO2 esculation affect. It is possible that the esculation is already in motion and it will follow its natural cycle until it is time to reverse, again.

 

One of the things that global warming activism has done is give CO2 a bad name. If you look at the role of CO2 for life on earth, it is the pivotal chemical needed by plants. It is a product all animals breath out as part of a natural symbiosis with the plants. The mentality is such, that something natural is marketed as a type of hazardous waste product. Things have lost touch with reality. It would be like after a flood, the nannies decide to list water as hazardous. Bottle water would have to come with a warning label such as; warning, contents have been shown to cause tidal waves, floods, drowning, hurricanes and rainy weather depression. We are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the baby is natural, only the bathwater is dirty. To much of a good thing is not always good for you. But overdoing a good thing does not make the good thing bad. That is subjective human and not objective science.

[TheBigDog]

Out of curiosity, what is the sum/percentage if you limit your dataset to the last 30 years?

I am using this chart for this question, IN

 

 

My dataset goes to 2004, so I will use 1975 to 2004 to represent 30 years. Total CO2 emission during that time is 1.81597 E14 kg. The atmospheric CO2 rose from 332 to 377 during that time, or 45 ppm (by the chart) or 3.50772 E14 kg. The emissions equate to 52% of the observed increase, when you factor in ocean absorption the actual can only account for 34.5% of the observed. So the emissions should only have driven up the atmospheric level by 15.5 ppm during that 30 year span.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

… where does the other 73.8% of the observed CO2 come from?

Since a detailed calculation is difficult and time-consuming, let me first make a quick, independent check of your sources and calculations, Bill.

 

Start with the estimated current values

density of CO2 at 1 ATM pressure: 1.98 kg CO2 / m^3

/ density of whole air at 1 ATM: 1.2 kg air / m^3

= 1.65 CO2 / air

* fraction by volume of CO2 in atmosphere: of 3.83e-4

* mass of the atmosphere: 5.148e18 kg

= 3.253e15 kg CO2

which roughly matches your value of 2.98546 E15 kg CO2

* to starting fraction by volume of CO2 of 2.8e-4

/ 3.83e-4

= 2.378e15 kg CO2

, a change of 8.75e14 kg CO2

The atomic mass of carbon is about 12, of oxygen, 16, so the molecular mass of CO2 is about 12 + 2*16 = 48, so a change of 8.75e14 kg CO2

* 12/48

= 3.75e14 kg carbon

, which roughly matches your value of 3.15432 E14 kg of CO2.

 

:Exclamati From this, I’m suspicious that you’ve confused an inventory of carbon by mass for one of CO2 by mass. 1 -12/48 = 75% roughly accounts for your missing 73.8%. :Exclamati

 

All the “carbon cycle” literature with which I’m familiar inventory’s the release and uptake of carbon, with the assumption that most atmospheric carbon is in CO2 form. The atmosphere being about 21% oxygen by volume, oxygen availability doesn’t limit its intake of carbon from any source, such as hydrocarbon burning.

[TheBigDog]

Since a detailed calculation is difficult and time-consuming, let me first make a quick, independent check of your sources and calculations, Bill.

 

Start with the estimated current values

density of CO2 at 1 ATM pressure: 1.98 kg CO2 / m^3

/ density of whole air at 1 ATM: 1.2 kg air / m^3

= 1.65 CO2 / air

* fraction by volume of CO2 in atmosphere: of 3.83e-4

* mass of the atmosphere: 5.148e18 kg

= 3.253e15 kg CO2

which roughly matches your value of 2.98546 E15 kg CO2

* to starting fraction by volume of CO2 of 2.8e-4

/ 3.83e-4

= 2.378e15 kg CO2

, a change of 8.75e14 kg CO2

The atomic mass of carbon is about 12, of oxygen, 8, so the molecular mass of CO2 is about 28, so a change of 8.75e14 kg CO2

* 12/28

= 3.75e14 kg carbon

, which roughly matches your value of 3.15432 E14 kg of CO2.

 

:Exclamati From this, I’m suspicious that you’ve confused an inventory of carbon by mass for one of CO2 by mass. 1 -12/29 = ~ 67% roughly accounts for your missing 74%. :Exclamati

 

All the “carbon cycle” literature with which I’m familiar inventory’s the release and uptake of carbon, with the assumption that most atmospheric carbon is in CO2 form. The atmosphere being about 21% oxygen by volume, oxygen availability doesn’t limit its intake of carbon from any source, such as hydrocarbon burning.

The atomic mass of Oxygen is 16. Dynamic Periodic Table

 

Bill

[CraigD]

…

The atomic mass of carbon is about 12, of oxygen, 8, so the molecular mass of CO2 is about 28, so a change of 8.75e14 kg CO2

* 12/28

= 3.75e14 kg carbon

, which roughly matches your value of 3.15432 E14 kg of CO2.

…

The atomic mass of Oxygen is 16. Dynamic Periodic Table

Oop! :Exclamati

 

Correcting, this gives:

The atomic mass of carbon is about 12, of oxygen, 8, so the molecular mass of CO2 is about 28, so a change of 8.75e14 kg CO2

* 12/48

= 2.19e14 kg carbon

, which roughly matches your value of 3.15432 E14 kg of CO2.

 

Though a bit rougher a match vs. your 3.15432 E14 figure, it’s actually gives a closer match of 1-12/48 = 75% for your missing 73.8% figure.

 

I continue to suspect you’ve confused atmospheric carbon data with atmospheric CO2, and suggest rechecking your sources and calculations.

[TheBigDog]

Oop! :Exclamati

 

Correcting, this gives:

The atomic mass of carbon is about 12, of oxygen, 8, so the molecular mass of CO2 is about 28, so a change of 8.75e14 kg CO2

* 12/48

= 2.19e14 kg carbon

, which roughly matches your value of 3.15432 E14 kg of CO2.

 

Though a bit rougher a match vs. your 3.15432 E14 figure, it’s actually gives a closer match of 1-12/48 = 75% for your missing 73.8% figure.

 

I continue to suspect you’ve confused atmospheric carbon data with atmospheric CO2, and suggest rechecking your sources and calculations.

I believe you are correct. The headers on the charts list the numbers as CO2, but when you read the supporting documentation the numbers actually represent just the carbon mass of the CO2. I am recalculating based upon that fact.

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

I continue to suspect you’ve confused atmospheric carbon data with atmospheric CO2, and suggest rechecking your sources and calculations.

OK, I have recalculated with the understanding that my volume of emissions represents just the carbon content of CO2 (nothing like keeping it simple :Exclamati )

 

I redid the calculation based upon the question that IN asked.

Out of curiosity, what is the sum/percentage if you limit your dataset to the last 30 years?

The increase in mass from 1975 to 2004 of 45 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is still the same at 3.50772 E14 kg. The carbon emission (as component of CO2) from 1975 to 2004 was 1.81597 E14 kg. The whole mass of the CO2 based upon the carbon mass was then 6.658556 E14 kg, or 190% of the observed increase. After accounting for the one third of CO2 absorbed by the ocean you are left with 4.43859 E14 kg of CO2, or 126.5% of the observed change. So we move from under accounting to over accounting. The carbon sink of the earth would then be more powerful than we are crediting. The impact of fossil fuels would have a much larger implication.

 

But I need to ask were the extra carbon went. I would assume that my source is underestimating the role of the ocean in absorbing CO2, and the biosphere as a whole and its ability to absorb both CO2 and carbon, or the carbon calculations are higher than actual. I am only in a position to discover so much about the data that I am using, I must have a certain level of faith in the numbers while relying upon them to understand the mechanics of the process.

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

Thanks Bill.

 

As an FYI, a recent study published in the Journal Science showed that the oceans' ability to absorb CO₂ is actually decreasing. I don't have a subscription to the journal, so more can be found below regarding the article I've referenced:

 

 

Southern Ocean Carbon Sink Weakened

Scientists have observed the first evidence that the Southern Ocean’s ability to absorb the major greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, has weakened by about 15 per cent per decade since 1981.

 

In research published in Science, an international research team – including CSIRO’s Dr Ray Langenfelds – concludes that the Southern Ocean carbon dioxide sink has weakened over the past 25 years and will be less efficient in the future. Such weakening of one of the Earth’s major carbon dioxide sinks will lead to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long-term.

[TheBigDog]

Thanks Bill.

 

As an FYI, a recent study published in the Journal Science showed that the oceans' ability to absorb CO₂ is actually decreasing. I don't have a subscription to the journal, so more can be found about the article I reference here:

 

 

Southern Ocean Carbon Sink Weakened

It appears from my research that the ocean's carbon sink is directly related to ocean temperature. Since the temperature of the ocean has increased by 0.1C from 1961 to 2003 (temp for top 700 meters), the ocean has less tendency to absorb atmospheric CO2. When CO2 gets to the lower, colder, higher pressure depths of the ocean then it actually turns solid and eventually settles on the bottom, essentially being removed from the carbon cycle. This appears to be one of the more reliable methods of culling the active carbon from the atmosphere.

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

It appears from my research that the ocean's carbon sink is directly related to ocean temperature. Since the temperature of the ocean has increased by 0.1C from 1961 to 2003 (temp for top 700 meters), the ocean has less tendency to absorb atmospheric CO2. When CO2 gets to the lower, colder, higher pressure depths of the ocean then it actually turns solid and eventually settles on the bottom, essentially being removed from the carbon cycle. This appears to be one of the more reliable methods of culling the active carbon from the atmosphere.

 

Bill

Are you sure of this?

If so how come we don't we just pump any CO2 we are worried about to the "lower, colder, higher pressure depths of the ocean' ?

Ii though we needed dead phytoplankton or perhaps (?)calcium shelled organisms to drop to the ocean floor to sequester carbon?

 

Southern Hemisphere Seas are colder and are not only dissolving more CO2 but also the Great Barrier and other Coral reefs. This is happening now.

 

 

On 'perma'frost:weather_snowing:

San Francisco Chronicle

Permafrost melt could speed up global warming

500 billion tons of extra CO{-2} could be released, study says

Permafrost melt could speed up global warming / 500 billion tons of extra CO{-2} could be released, study says

ON Submarine venting of CO2

Considering the astounding discoveries to date in these regions (e.g., liquid CO2 venting, first direct observations of submarine eruptive activity on an arc volcano, new ecosystems etc.), this region should remain a high priority for future exploration

s.

NOAA Ocean Explorer

 

Seamount Hydrothermal Systems: Volcanology, Biology, Geochemistry, and Oceanography I - Volcanology, Geochemistry, Petrology [V]

 

ON Terrestrial vents

Working along a naturally-occurring gradient of atmospheric CO2 concentration in the vicinity of a CO2-emitting spring in New Zealand, they studied the effects of elevated CO2 on several properties of soil fungi

CO2 Science

:hihi:

God knows what various volcanoes and wildfires produce.

;)

[CraigD]

It appears from my research that the ocean's carbon sink is directly related to ocean temperature. Since the temperature of the ocean has increased by 0.1C from 1961 to 2003 (temp for top 700 meters), the ocean has less tendency to absorb atmospheric CO2. When CO2 gets to the lower, colder, higher pressure depths of the ocean then it actually turns solid and eventually settles on the bottom, essentially being removed from the carbon cycle. This appears to be one of the more reliable methods of culling the active carbon from the atmosphere.

Are you sure of this?

If so how come we don't we just pump any CO2 we are worried about to the "lower, colder, higher pressure depths of the ocean' ?

Ii though we needed dead phytoplankton or perhaps (?)calcium shelled organisms to drop to the ocean floor to sequester carbon?

From all I’ve read, and my inexpert grasp of the chemistry involved, both of these mechanisms - biological and non-biological chemical processes – are significant in the transfer of carbon between the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

 

Carbon from atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] is taken up by marine organisms, primarily phytoplankton, into their tissues. This reaction requires energy, which phytoplankton get primarily from sunlight (photosynthesis). Subsequently phytoplankton is eaten by other plankton, and they and phytoplankton eaten by macroscopic organisms (including some very macroscopic, such as whales ;) ) and the formerly atmospheric carbon incorporated into their soft tissues, bones, and hard shells. Eventually, these animals die, and their tissues and shells sink to the ocean floor.

 

Atmospheric carbon dioxide and water form carbonic acid ([ce]CO2 + H2O \rightarrow H_2CO_3[/ce]), which forms bicarbonate ([ce]HCO3[/ce]), which forms salts (eg: [ce]NaHCO3[/ce]), which are both taken into marine organism, and directly settle onto the ocean floor.

 

Though both mechanisms are important in the carbon cycle, phytoplankton appear to me especially attractive, because they are readily susceptible to artificial “tweaking” to increase their carbon uptake rate. These organisms though very plentiful, are metabolically fairly idle in all but a small fraction of the ocean, limited by the scarcity of nutrients needed for their metabolism, primarily iron. Artificially supplying them with these scarce nutrients can quickly increase their metabolism, and with it the oceans’ net rate of carbon uptake, a process known as iron fertilization, which we’ve discussed at some length in earlier threads.

 

When considering the impact of atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] and other gasses, I think it’s useful to view the situation in terms of the need for manageable, controllable artificial processes, not as a simple “waste disposal problem” of “too much [ce]CO2[/ce]”. Our civilization has demonstrated that it can effectively artificially introduce large (> 5e12 kg/year) amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, but far from a comparable ability to artificially remove carbon from it.

 

Although focusing on reducing carbon emissions is certainly valuable, the ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere promises to be a valuable tool, which may prove critical to human wellbeing in coming years and decades.

 

PS: for readers who’ve not already discovered them, the diagrams commonly found in discussions of the “carbon cycle”, such as the one in this wikipedia article, are helpful in visualizing the “big picture” of which atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] is a part.

[Michaelangelica]

An interesting bit of research on phytoplankton and CO2

Seas to absorb greenhouse gas, but food chain hit | Environment | Reuters

 

"What appears to be a blessing for the atmospheric greenhouse effect may prove to be a curse for deep ocean ecosystems," the Leibnitz Institute said in a statement.