Recent Volcano Greenhouse Gases 12

[zdas04]

I've been looking for a week for an estimate of how much greenhouse gas has been put into the ecosystem by the Iceland Volcano. Anyone seen an estimate? I'm betting it is a number in excess of all the CO2 that people have put into the air since we slithered from the primordial ooze. So you wreck economies to reduce our contribution and a single fairly small volcano puts more stuff in the air the man ever has. I think Iceland should pay the world a Cap and Trade fee.

David

 

[FeX32]

I just love these arguments without plausible cause.


Fe

 

[GregLocock]

This is the way the scientific method is supposed to work:

Observation 1 - atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased since 1850

Observation 2 - we've been burning a lot of fossil fuels and making a lot of concrete since 1850

Hypothesis 1 - the increase in CO2 is primarily due to burning fossil fuels and cement production

Hypothesis 2 - the increase in CO2 is primarily due to other causes.

A real scientist would then construct a test which robustly validates 1 or 2. Has this been published?

Note this doesn't need climate models, or computers, or tree rings as surrogates for thermometers. It is fundamental to the worry wart's argument. Anthropogenic carbon is about 3.4% of the total carbon in the natural carbon cycle, and the only study of the carbon cycle I've seen suggests that if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increases by 50%, so do the recycling processes, as one would expect from a typical chemical reaction.

It is also worth pointing out the atmospheric CO2 is currently rising from a very low base, and is yet to hit the recent peak achieved in 500 AD (pine needles measurement, Kouwenberg 2005).

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[ornerynorsk]

Excellent post Greg, thanks.

 

[moltenmetal]

You have a huge and reasonably well quantifiable source of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from the fossil carbon we've been burning, the forests we've been burning, the carbonaceous rocks we've been calcining etc. The CO2 emission rate and the atmospheric CO2 concentration correlate in both time and magnitude in lock-step. While you are correct that correlation alone is NOT proof of causality, one can do estimates of CO2 emission and absorption rates, and the volume of the atmosphere is relatively easy to estimate.

We may be "puny humans", but we have emitted PLENTY enough fossil carbon to explain these measured atmospheric carbon concentration increases, so a simple mass balance on carbon emissions doesn't disprove the anthropogenic origin hypothesis.

Your suggestion is that "something else (of natural origin)" is responsible for this trend, and that the lock-step correlation between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 measurements is mere coincidence. Vulcanism is clearly NOT supported as the "something else" (that hasn't stopped numerous people from repeating this false assertion). Do you have other hypotheses to suggest, something more specific than merely "something else"? Otherwise, the way the scientific method works is that the hypothesis which best explains the measurements we have now is the one we continue to test alternative hypotheses AGAINST. Lacking multiple-twin Earths and an accelerated timescale to do controlled experiments on, we have a somewhat limited ability to test hypotheses to the satisfaction of all.

That anthropogenic carbon is "only 3.4% of the total carbon in the natural carbon cycle" is irrelevant. I've seen credible estimates for the half life of atmospheric CO2 of ~ 100 years, since the natural carbon balance equilibria are chemical and biological rather than physical (i.e. such as simple dissolution). Input minus output equals accumulation- only the DIFFERENCE between the two rates matters.

What the historical CO2 concentrations were over a thousand years back are at least as uncertain as the temperature data so often disputed by the AGW denial crowd. That there have been in past natural variations in CO2 concentrations does not in and of itself invalidate the hypothesis that this recent rise is man-made.

Again, you can deny the linkage between CO2 and damaging global temperature increase and have at least some credibility in my books. I don't share that opinion nor do I feel that we need hard proof of this probable harm to justify significant efforts and cost to curb our squandering of fossil fuels. But denial of the highly probable human causes of MEASURED atmospheric CO2 concentration are NOT credible and do not befit a forum of engineers in my opinion.

 

[GregLocock]

FWIW I favour not burning fossil fuels, and I think that there is a reasonable chance that anthropogenic CO2 production is a significant contributor to atmospheric CO2 levels, the numbers seem to be at least of the same order.

But what I 'think' has no effect on the world. If I wish to persuade other people to reduce CO2 emissions then the program I suggested above is an essential step.

Have these calculations or measurements been done and proved to be robust?

There also seems to be a problem of interpretation.

The atmospheric component of the carbon cycle is X tonnes/year. The total atmospheric CO2 content is Y tonnes. Therefore the mean life of CO2 in the atmosphere is Z years.

Z=Y/X Not a hard sum to do.

According to Nasa

http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg

X=121.3 GT/y
Y=750 GT

So Z is 6 years. Hard to reconcile that with a half life of 100.

In 150 years, if those figures were unchanged, we'd have added 150*5.5=800 GT to the atmosphere, doubling the concentration. In fact the concentration has increased by 50%, which is what I meant by the 'same order' above.

At the same time, we know that the current CO2 levels are extremely low, and that historically thay have gone up and down by far more without our involvement.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Unotec]

I've heard the volcano eruption will block sunlight and cool the world. So if this is true, and the CO2 somehow, by miracle, is not generated in a volcanic eruption then why worry.
Now that the US coast guard is going to set the Gulf of Mexico on fire (or so I've heard), there should be enough CO2 going around to balance things out.
In any event, I wish I could watch the Gulf going on fire!

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[owg]

Thanks to GregLocock, moltenmetal, and others for these helpful posts. I have been pondering the problems of measuring the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature of the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere seems to be spending a fair bit of energy mixing itself, judging by the bumpy ride I had yesterday across North America, I suppose the CO2 concentration readings that we get are fairly similar to each other and averaging them some way probably produces a fairly representative result. Conversely the atmosphere seems to be constantly sorting itself into areas of high and low temperature. This must make it very difficult to determine a useful average temperature or a total heat content. So I do believe that we moved the CO2 up a bit, but I am not at all certain that the temperature is going up, and even if it is, I am not sure that we did it.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[eliebl]

If my recollection of my geology courses is correct, the amount of CO2 from the Icelandic volcanoes would not be significant. These volcanoes are located at divergent plate boundaries where simple magma is rising to the surface due to parting of the mid atlantic ridge.

When volcanoes like Mt. St. Hellens erupt, the eruptions are violent and filled with gasses. These gasses come from the fact that the plate boundaries are convergent and the calcium carbonates(coral) become part of the magma pool.

my 2 cents