All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Meandering]

Since most of the land mass in the northern hemisphere, it demonstrates how nature overwhelms man's ability to burn carbon. The only question becomes, where is this CO2 excess coming from?

CO2 is coming from the ocean
The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is listed in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics as a declining function of temperature. ... The rising values of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the time of the Mouna Loa measurements could clearly be a function of reduced solubility of CO2 in the oceans of the Planet.

So here is the basics of chemistry. CO2 is less soluble in warm water. It is more soluble in cold water

Atmospheric oxygen is going down by the same amount as atmospheric CO2 is going up. Oxygen is so abundant at about 21% (209,500 ppm) that we are in no danger of running out; the change in oxygen simply shows that whatever the source of CO2 in the atmosphere, the carbon part of it has come from the oxidation of reduced carbon compounds and the oxygen has come from oxygen gas in the atmosphere. That is, the extra CO2 was not released in the form of CO2 from an unknown source but instead some reduced carbon compound was burnt in the atmosphere to produce CO2.

Most obviously, any alternative explanation for the source of the CO2 in the atmosphere has to also come up with where the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 known to be released by fossil fuel burning each year goes.

Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at about 2 ppmv per year (or 16 billion tonnes). That is, only around half of the CO2 we release remains in the atmosphere. The pH decrease in the oceans corresponds to most of the “missing” CO2, so we can also be confident that land use changes etc are not a major source/sink. Caveat: Land use and biomass changes certainly soak up a lot of CO2, some it simply regrowth of forests etc, but the point is that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere clearly demonstrates that they do not soak up enough.

In summary:

Amount of increased CO2
in the atmosphere
+
Amount of increased CO2 in the oceans
=
Amount of known fossil
fuel emissions of CO2

Acknowledgements: this post was written by New Zealand chemical oceanographer, Doug Mackie.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm

To which, I disagree as it does not address the planet typical CO2 released by fires, hot springs, and volcanic activity, every month, as graphed by NOAA, which I presented last week.

.

.

 

[Meandering]

Since most of the land mass in the northern hemisphere, it demonstrates how nature overwhelms man's ability to burn carbon. The only question becomes, where is this CO2 excess coming from?

CO2 is coming from the ocean
The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is listed in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics as a declining function of temperature. ... The rising values of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the time of the Mouna Loa measurements could clearly be a function of reduced solubility of CO2 in the oceans of the Planet. (Watts Up With That)

So here is the basics of chemistry. CO2 is less soluble in warm water. It is more soluble in cold water

Atmospheric oxygen is going down by the same amount as atmospheric CO2 is going up. Oxygen is so abundant at about 21% (209,500 ppm) that we are in no danger of running out; the change in oxygen simply shows that whatever the source of CO2 in the atmosphere, the carbon part of it has come from the oxidation of reduced carbon compounds and the oxygen has come from oxygen gas in the atmosphere. That is, the extra CO2 was not released in the form of CO2 from an unknown source but instead some reduced carbon compound was burnt in the atmosphere to produce CO2.

Most obviously, any alternative explanation for the source of the CO2 in the atmosphere has to also come up with where the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 known to be released by fossil fuel burning each year goes.

Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at about 2 ppmv per year (or 16 billion tonnes). That is, only around half of the CO2 we release remains in the atmosphere. The pH decrease in the oceans corresponds to most of the “missing” CO2, so we can also be confident that land use changes etc are not a major source/sink. Caveat: Land use and biomass changes certainly soak up a lot of CO2, some it simply regrowth of forests etc, but the point is that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere clearly demonstrates that they do not soak up enough.

In summary:

Amount of increased CO2
in the atmosphere
+
Amount of increased CO2 in the oceans
=
Amount of known fossil
fuel emissions of CO2

Acknowledgements: this post was written by New Zealand chemical oceanographer, Doug Mackie.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-coming-from-ocean.htm

To which, I disagree as it does not address the planet typical CO2 released by fires, hot springs, and volcanic activity, every month, as graphed by NOAA, which I presented last week.

.

.

 

[Meandering]

Deforestation

When trees die and decompose, CO2 is released. This is part of the normal carbon cycle. When trees are cut down and used for fuel, the CO2 is also released. The rate at which CO2 is released as a result of using trees for fuel is increased. However, when trees are used for building construction, furniture, etc, the carbon is not released rapidly into the environment. One would suspect then that harvesting trees for this purpose would result in less CO2 release into the atmosphere for any given period. That might be correct, except that the tropical forests are being depleted, and with a reduction in vegetation, there is a reduction in photosynthesis. As a result, the carbon cycle is interrupted and the CO2 is not being converted into sugars and oxygen. CO2 accumulates. According to University of Maryland researchers (3), the UN reported that deforestation had decreased between 1980s and the 1990s, when, in fact, it had increased, and the CO2 emissions from deforestation had increased. If CO2 is increased due to deforestation, one would expect the oxygen level to decrease as a result of decreased photosynthesis.

Fossil Fuels
A third source of carbon dioxide comes from stored CO2. The carbon found in fossil fuels was laid down over millions of years. Because the organisms did not decay completely, the carbon was never released into the atmosphere as CO2. Instead, it was stored up in the earth. Once fossil fuel has been recovered, processed and burned, the CO2, which would normally have been released over tens of millions of years, is suddenly all released within a period of a few hundred years, thus increasing the amount of CO2 in the environment.

Global Warming
Some scientists have suggested that ocean warming is resulting in increased CO2 and not the other way around (5). This is based on the idea that there is a lot of CO2 trapped in the oceans, and as the temperature rises, the CO2 is released, since the solubility of gases is inversely proportional to temperature. Oceans have long been considered to be a sink for atmospheric carbon. If it is releasing CO2 as a result of warming temperatures, the CO2 should be decreasing in the oceans.

Separating Carbon cycle CO2, deforestation CO2, oceanic CO2 and fossil fuel CO2

It becomes important to determine the source of the increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 parts per million by volume between 1800 and 2005.

Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source of the increased carbon in the atmosphere (4,5,7). The studies are based on the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2. Carbon has three possible isotopes: C-12, C-13 and C-14. C-12, which has 6 neutrons, is by far the most prevalent carbon isotope and is a stable isotope. Carbon 13 is also a stable isotope, but plants prefer Carbon 12 and therefore photosynthetic CO2 (fossil fuel or wood fuels) is much lower in C-13 than CO2 that comes from other sources (e.g.: animal respiration) Carbon-14 is radioactive. Studies of carbon isotopes in CO2 has resulted in the following findings (5,7,8).
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

.

• There has been a decline in the 14C/12C ratio in CO2 that parallels the increase in CO2. In 1950 a scientist named Suess discovered that fossils do not contain 14C because they are much older than 10 half lives of 14C.
• There has been a parallel decline in 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This has been linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon which is low in 13C. If the increased CO2 was due to warming of the oceans, there should not be a reduction in the ratios of C-13 and C-14 to C-12.

There are other clues that suggest the source of increased CO2 is not related to the warming of the ocean and subsequent release of CO2 from the ocean.

• There has been a decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere. If ocean warming was responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2, because O2 is also released as the water is warmed.
• The ocean is a sink for atmospheric carbon, and the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. If the atmospheric CO2 was the result of oceans releasing CO2 to the atmosphere, the CO2 in the ocean should not be rising as a result of ocean warming.

There is still some resistance to the theory that the increase in CO2 results from the burning of fossil fuel, and that the increase in CO2 is responsible for global warming. There is little pressure on the US power plants to reduce CO2 emissions; so here it's still "Burning of fossil fuel is good for the environment" and "the world is flat." However, European power plants faced with reducing their CO2 emissions significantly by 2008 and even more between 2008 and 2012 as required by the Kyoto Protocol, have embarked upon a unique way to reduce the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere (9). The technique known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) involves siphoning off and burying the CO2 underground. While the CO2 is not "gone," it is contained. For now they have to report it as "released CO2," but The Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs is working out plans to give industries credit for carbon capturing and storing in the second phase, from 2008-12, of the European carbon trading scheme. It will be interesting to see the effect of keeping the CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere. Of course, the next step would be to find a way to treat the stored CO2 or find a use for it.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Doug Mackie does not account from the ocean CO2 to the atmosphere. And, if the earth (land mass and oceans and atmosphere) is warming, land mass and oceans serve as increased emitters of CO2 as the temperatures increase.

Less or more? Can't have it both ways.

As for carbon isotopes, did you notice the phrase used, "Isotopes of carbon may hold a key to determining the source?"

Dr. Roy W. Spencer wrote an article about carbon isotopes back in 2008.

More CO2 Peculiarities: The C13/C12 Isotope Ratio

I showed evidence for the possibility that there is a natural component to the rise in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Briefly, the inter-annual co-variability in Southern Hemisphere SST and Mauna Loa CO2 was more than large enough to explain the long-term trend in CO2. Of course, some portion of the Mauna Loa increase must be anthropogenic, but it is not clear that it is entirely so.

Well, now I’m going to provide what appears to be further evidence that there could be a substantial natural source of the long-term increase in CO2.

One of the purported signatures of anthropogenic CO2 is the carbon isotope ratio, C13/C12. The “natural” C13 content of CO2 is just over 1.1%. In contrast, the C13 content of the CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels is claimed to be slightly smaller – just under 1.1%.

The concentration of C13 isn’t reported directly, it is given as “dC13”, which is computed as:

“dC13 = 1000* {([C13/C12]sample / [C13/C12]std ) – 1

The plot of the monthly averages of this index from Mauna Loa is shown in Fig. 1.

Now, as we burn fossil fuels, the ratio of C13 to C12 is going down. From what I can find digging around on the Internet, some people think this is the signature of anthropogenic emissions. But if you examine the above equation, you will see that the C13 index that is reported can go down not only from decreasing C13 content, but also from an increasing C12 content (the other 98.9% of the CO2).

If we convert the data in Fig. 1 into C13 content, we find that the C13 content of the atmosphere is increasing (Fig. 2).

So, as the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased, so has the C13 content…which, of course, makes sense when one realizes that fossil-fuel CO2 has only very slightly less C13 than “natural” CO2 (about 2.6% less in relative terms). If you add more CO2, whether from a natural or anthropogenic source, you are going to add more C13.

The question is: how does the rate of increase in C13 compare to the CO2 increase from natural versus anthropogenic sources?

First, lets look at the C13 versus C12 for the linear trend portion of these data (Fig. 3).

The slope of this line (1.0952%) represents the ratio of C13 variability to C12 variability associated with the trend signals. When we compare this to what is to be expected from pure fossil CO2 (1.0945%), it is very close indeed: 97.5% of the way from “natural” C13 content (1.12372%) to the fossil content.

At this point, one might say, “There it is! The anthropogenic signal!”. But, alas, the story doesn’t end there.

If we remove the trend from the data to look at the inter-annual signals in CO2 and C13, we get the curves shown in Figures 4 and 5.

Note the strong similarity – the C13 variations very closely follow the C12 variations, which again (as in my previous post) are related to SST variations (e.g. the strong signal during the 1997-98 El Nino event).

Now, when we look at the ratio of these inter-annual signals like we did from the trends in Fig. 3, we get the relationship seen in Fig. 6.

Significantly, note that the ratio of C13 variability to CO2 variability is EXACTLY THE SAME as that seen in the trends!

BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??

 

[Meandering]

because they can make money by doing so, or,
Give the impression they are making money by doing so.

Thank you.
That was a fantastic read.

Where's Terrel, I'm sure he would like to read it also.

.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

I tell you the earth is being destroyed by man burning fossil fuel, dummkopf!

Now buy my carbon credits!

Carbon is carbon but methane is not polluting.

 

[Meandering]

The thing that cracks me up about the "save the planet" crew,

is that they forget, every time they exhale they release CO2 into the atmosphere.

Breath less, save the planet.

.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Pelosi on Natural Gas: Fossil Fuel or Not?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s message on energy, already evolving in recent weeks, might have to evolve a little more.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, the speaker twice seemed to suggest that natural gas – an energy source she favors – is not a fossil fuel.

“I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels,” she said at one point. Natural gas “is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels,” she said at another.

But according to naturalgas.org, an educational Web site maintained by the Natural Gas Supply Association, “natural gas is the cleanest of all the fossil fuels.”

Pelosi and her husband drew attention recently for their investment in T. Boone Pickens’s Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which markets compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas as a fuel for motor vehicles.

Pelosi’s investment in Clean Energy – between $50,000 and $100,000 – is a tiny fraction of the speaker’s assets, as she pointed out on Sunday. “That’s not the point,” she added. “I’m investing in something I believe in.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/24/pelosi-on-natural-gas-fossil-fuel-or-not/

It seems some politicians were confused about carbon. Not all fossil fuels are dirty. Methane constitutes a renewable energy source provided it does not come from deep in the ground. Renewable means it could come a natural source like a landfill.

Landfill gas, released as solid waste decomposes, can be used to generate electricity in a very cost-effective manner. This gas is a mixture of methane, carbon dioxide, and other organic compounds.

Landfill gas, produced when anaerobic bacteria break down organic waste, is extracted using a series of wells or a vacuum system. Gas is then collected in a central location for processing. The gas may be used to generate electricity onsite, or it may be upgraded to pipeline-quality gas.

The methane produced by landfills is a potent greenhouse gas and thus a major contributor to environmental problems. However, when methane gas is burned, it converts to less harmful substances such as CO2 and water. Therefore, although landfill gas is neither entirely renewable nor completely clean as a fuel source, it has many benefits in comparison to fossil fuel sources of electricity generation.

But carbon is carbon although some carbon atoms are more renewable and therefore politically acceptable.

 

[Meandering]

Could diesel made from air help tackle climate change?

Making diesel out of thin air sounds like something from science fiction.

But small companies in Germany and Canada are doing precisely this - capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) and finding ways to sell it.

German company Sunfire produced its first batches of so-called e-diesel in April. Federal Minister of Education and Research, Johanna Wanka, put a few litres in her car, to celebrate.

And the Canadian company Carbon Engineering has just built a pilot plant to suck one to two tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air daily, turning it into 500 litres of diesel.

The process requires electricity, but if the start-ups use renewable electricity they can produce diesel that is carbon neutral.

In other words, burning it in your car only returns to the atmosphere the CO2 removed in the first place.

Elemental chemistry
The chemistry to make fuel from CO2 isn't especially hard - split water into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis, add the hydrogen to CO2 to make carbon monoxide and water, then bung in more hydrogen to build up hydrocarbon chains.

This last bit's called the Fischer-Tropsch process, and dates back to the 1920s.

But it's the technologies capturing the CO2 straight from the air that are new and now becoming cheap enough to be viable.

The biggest technological challenges have centred on the high-temperature furnaces, says Adrian Corless, chief executive of Carbon Engineering.

But these also have been his company's chief innovation, he says - precipitating captured CO2 into solid calcium carbonate pellets that can be easily washed and dried.

These pellets are then heated to 800-900C, whereupon they release a pure CO2 stream. As a residue, they leave calcium oxide which, handily, can be fed back in to the first air capture stage.

Fizzy drinks (Soda to Americans)
Besides fuel, there are other options for selling captured CO2.

Swiss company Climeworks, spun off from a local university, is readying its first commercial-scale plant, selling captured CO2 to a nearby greenhouse.

Climeworks sees a long-term market in supplying fizzy drinks (Soda) bottlers in Africa, Japan, and hard-to-reach islands, by setting up locally and beating transport costs.

The expense of compressing, liquefying, and shipping carbon CO2 is up to 10 times more in such places, says Dominique Kronenberg, the firm's chief operating officer.

It is certainly easier to remove CO2 from the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning plants than capture it from the air, because exhaust streams from gas and coal plants contain 3% and 15% CO2 respectively.

Air, by contrast, contains about 400 parts per million of CO2.

Another attraction of air capture is it that it is easier to extract the CO2 this way than from the exhaust gases of cars and other forms of transport, says Mr Corless.

Price at the pump
But could e-diesel ever compete with fossil fuels on price?

Sunfire estimates its e-diesel will sell for €1-€1.5 (73p-110p) per litre - slightly cheaper than the current UK diesel pump price of 119p per litre.

But a lot depends on government policy. The actual price of the fuel can be as low as 30% of what we pay at the pump - the rest of the cost is made up of fuel duty, VAT, and the retailer's profit margin.

"So we assume certain taxes might not be applied to these renewable fuels we produce," says Mr Kronenberg, perhaps more in hope than expectation.

In the US and the UK there are government initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of cleaner transport fuels.

But it's the cost of electricity that could make or break e-diesel's commercial viability, because the process requires a lot of energy.

And another point in e-diesel's favour is that there are hundreds of millions of diesel vehicles already on the road, so at least this cleaner fuel could help ease the transition to zero carbon transport while we wait for an electric or hydrogen charging infrastructure to be built.

Meanwhile, the US Naval Research Laboratory says it's interested in using e-diesel to fuel its ships.

So you never know, your car may be running on fuel made from thin air sooner than you expect.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34064072

.

 

[Amy Perkins]

Our gas tax that pays for our roads systems is based on the gallons we use, not the state of the road.