UPDATE2: The question has been resolved, please see this new WUWT story on the issue. – Anthony
UPDATE: There is a debate raging in comments about the validity of the statement “That is four degrees below the freezing point of CO2 and would cause dry (CO2) ice to freeze directly out of the air.”
On one hand we have an argument from several commenters that says that the temperatures, pressures, and phase diagrams only apply to a pure state of CO2, such as in the manufacture of dry ice.
“Certainly, at least some of the CO2 in the atmosphere at the poles does freeze out (of the air) during the winter.”
So there appears to be a debate. If it turns out the statement is wrong, and some empirical proof can be presented, I’ll retract and/or amend the article. There appears to be a wide interest in this question, so I’m not opposed to find the true answer, even if it means the statement is entirely wrong.
Feel free to post in comments, but leave the snark and ad hom out of it. I’m more interested in settling the question.
I’ve also changed the title to be more reflective of the question before us now. – Anthony
By Steven Goddard
The south pole of Mars (seen below) similarly has an eight metre thick layer of dry (CO2) ice on top of the H2O ice.
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tom (08:21:51) :
> Dry ice placed in … in an open container completely sublimated overnight. Dry ice placed in a zip top bag … retained >90% of its mass.
That’s interesting. I wonder how long dry ice remains in a home freezer, bagged, wrapped in newspaper, or bare. Or in a bubble-wrap bag. That could be useful, maybe even the start of a new old-wives’ tale.
Good job!
“”” A lack of carbon dioxideCarbon dioxide
in the air, which leads to irregularities in a person’s breathing mechanism. “””
Notice it says a “lack” of carbon dioxide; it does not say an “absence” of carbon dioxide.
I would venture that both the lower pressure, and the very low water vapor, as well as lower partial pressure of CO2 all conspire to inhibit breathing at Vostok.
“”” Ric Werme (18:29:23) :
George E. Smith (15:52:31) :
> But I’m with you on old F. I get tired of the add 40, times 5/9 or 9/5, and subtract 40 ritual; never can tell if I’m going the right way.
Hey, that’s the formula Dad taught me! So much better than the infinitude of other formulae. It’s 9/5 going to F – I remember it because Fahrenheit temps are larger than Celcius except in a rather small range.
$ units
2438 units, 71 prefixes, 32 nonlinear units
You have: barn
You want: cm^2
* 1e-24
/ 1e+24
You have: parsec
You want: m
* 3.0856776e+16
/ 3.2407793e-17
You have: barn * parsec
You want: furlong^3
* 3.7903023e-19
/ 2.638312e+18
You have: barn * parsec
You want: nanogill
* 26.084793
/ 0.038336513
I.e. a barn parsec is 26 nanogills. Remarkable something that long can be so small. “””
Well Ric, that formula simply acknowledges the fact that the Celsius (Centigrade) and Fahrenheit scales cross at -40.
So for either temperature, if you add 40 you simply shift the origin to the crossover point and then the conversion is simply the 9:5 slope ratio. And then you have to restore the original origin with the -40. QED
I’d rather stay away from those nanogills; as a devoted SW fly fisherman, I am into the megagills; and may in my old age gravitate simply to gills when I become a trout fisherman.
George
UPDATE: I got the freezer photos from Tom, with no errors, and I’ll write up a complete summary post on it all tonight – Anthony
Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for an ideal gas; Distribution of molecular velocities.
f(v) = (1/N)dN/dv = 4pi.v^2(m/2pi.kT)^3/2 e^(- mv^2/2kT)
The v in f(v) is a vector velocity, N is the number of particles, m is the particle mass, and k is Boltzmann’s constant.
The result is a non Gaussian assymmetrical distribution, which has a long high velocity tail on it, representing higher energy molecules.
A somewhat similar velocity distribution occurs in the solid; modified by the fact that the molecules in a solid are not entirely free as they are in an ideal gas.
The solid stays put because intermolecular forces hold the molecules together in the solid state; and often these binding forces are stronger at the surface because of the lack of adjacent molecules outside the solid surface pulling the other way. this surface effect is often describes as a “work function” or some such, and is a measure of the energy required to knock a molecule or atom off the solid surface. In liquids, surface tension plays a similar role.
But now we have that M-B velocity distribution with its high energy tail; so there are always some rag tag molecules/atoms that are more energetic than others; and some have enough energy to overcome the work function binding energy and fly off the surface into obliviousness (in the open).
So in a vaccuum, almost anything can ultimately evaporate/sublime if you will; even your spacecraft.
So a block of dry ice sitting there in a vaccuum at -113 deg C will lose some molecules; and the number being lost increases with v which increases with temperature.
If the solid is now place in a closed volume; then those escaping molecules/atoms accumulate in the “atmosphere” that occupies the rest of the closed space. The only species that matters much is the species of which the solid is made (assuming that the other species do not chemically react with the solid, although some of them may adhere to the surface; but presumably not too many will have enough kinetic energy to actually penetrate into the solid.
Of course in the solid state diffusion case; of interest to semiconductor technology; you actually want some of the vapor phase molecules/atoms to have enough energy to penetrate into the solid to change its electrical properties.
But at -113 deg C at Vostok; you are not going to do a whole lot of solid state diffusion into a block of dry ice.
So the homospecies molecules accumulating in the atmosphere, will eventually encounter the solid surface; maybe even with a higher energy obtained in collsions with other gas molecules; but in any case with the velocity vector towards the solid, rather than away from it; so some of them will stick to the solid, which is a dposition or condensation process.
As the concentration of the species in the atmosphere increases, the number of collisions with the surface increases, until eventually the number arriving and sticking is equal to the number that are leaving; and at that point the mass loss from the solid will stop; but the dynamic equelibrium exchange between the solid and the vapor continuesw on but with no net gain or loss in mass of the solid. And this is the equilibrium saturated vapor pressure of the homospecies; that is necessary to maintain the equilibrium state dictated by the phase diagram.
To the extent that there are other heterospecies atoms or molecules present in the atmosphere, they may apply a volume compression pressure to the solid; but to a large extent; they cannot interfere with the surface escape process of the homospecies molecules.
In a liquid on the other hand, the pressure of all the heterospecies components of the atmosphere change the internal pressure of the liquid; and so they prevent the formation of homospecies vapor bubbles in the bulk volume of the liquid; untll the temperature rises to a point where the equilibrium vapor pressure of the homospecies becomes equal to the total ambient pressure (in the bulk) plus the needed surface tension over pressure required for vapor bubbles to grwo in the bulk; and that condition is the definition of “boiling”.
But boiling cannot occur at a temperature below the triple point of the three phase system.
George
Glenn (01:24:31) :
Phil. (23:48:13) :
“Glenn (18:31:12) :
One thing needing to be shown is the concentration of CO2 in the air at Vostok.
Would the South Pole do?”
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/South_Pole_CO2.jpg
Would the latest measure be the same at all altitudes and locations?
The volume fraction should certainly be the same at Vostok and the South Pole, the partial pressure will be different because of the altitude difference.
Gary Pearse (06:08:17) :
Glen, Phil
No CO2 in air at Vostok:
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Vostok_Station
‘lack of’ is not the same as ‘absence’, as at any other high altitude locale the partial pressure of CO2 will drop with atmospheric pressure. The body senses pCO2 (in carotid artery and cerebrospinal fluid) and the breathing rate is adjusted by the respiratory center of the brain. This can lead to difficulty breathing which is why they warn about it at the Vostok site.
Phil.,
Thank you for posting the change in CO2 levels at the South Pole: click
It’s interesting to compare that CO2 graph with the declining temperatures measured at the South Pole: click
How about that correlation? It’s yet another nail in the coffin of the repeatedly falsified CO2=runaway AGW conjecture.
George E. Smith (11:31:53) :
Hi George,
Continuing from yesterday
The thickness of ice at Dome A? Estimated to be more than 3000 metres. See http://www.sciencepoles.org/index.php?/articles_interviews/frozen_grail_dome_a_and_the_future_of_ice_coring_in_antarctica/&uid=1395 and plans to core this ice.
“It appears that the Arctic, and the Antarctic must be severely deprived of sunlight” In winter time yes of course, see this cloud montage and explanation for the two solstices, December 2004 & June 2005 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6125
Ciao
Philip
Phil. (12:19:57) :
“Glenn (01:24:31) :
Phil. (23:48:13) :
“Glenn (18:31:12) :
One thing needing to be shown is the concentration of CO2 in the air at Vostok.
Would the South Pole do?”
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/South_Pole_CO2.jpg
Would the latest measure be the same at all altitudes and locations?
The volume fraction should certainly be the same at Vostok and the South Pole, the partial pressure will be different because of the altitude difference.”
Volume fraction is concentration. Vostok and the South Pole are at different altitudes. What do you say to this?:
“The observed CO2 concentration is generally high in low altitude and low in high altitude. High CO2 concentration relative to the average CO2 distribution is sometimes observed during the flights. Its difference is about 8 ppmv at most. Trajectory analysis suggests that the observed air with high CO2 concentration is often affected by continental outflow. The averaged CO2 vertical distribution shows seasonal difference. The CO2 concentration decreases with altitude in winter at all latitude…”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFM.A62B0151W
There has been agreement among those that are familiar with the thermodynamics of CO2. There is no need to have a vote. There can be no solid CO2 layer at any temperature encountered at the South Pole or other location on the surface of Earth at the temperatures or CO2 levels presently available or projected. I do not understand why there is still some that seem uncertain.
Volume fraction is concentration. Vostok and the South Pole are at different altitudes. What do you say to this?:
It has absolutely nothing to do with the Antarctic.
“The observed CO2 concentration is generally high in low altitude and low in high altitude. High CO2 concentration relative to the average CO2 distribution is sometimes observed during the flights. Its difference is about 8 ppmv at most. Trajectory analysis suggests that the observed air with high CO2 concentration is often affected by continental outflow. The averaged CO2 vertical distribution shows seasonal difference. The CO2 concentration decreases with altitude in winter at all latitude…”
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFM.A62B0151W
As promised, I have a new article on the subject which resolves the issues raised here.
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/13/results-lab-experiment-regarding-co2-snow-in-antarctica-at-113%C2%B0f-80-5%C2%B0c-not-possible/
Hans Erren (15:09:41) : Could you please use degrees Celsius, like the rest of the world does? Or if you must use Fahrenheit, please use both C and F?
FWIW, I just have a little spread sheet open with the C to F (and any other thermometers of interest…) listed side by side in about 10 degree increments. Some odd number comes in, I just type it in one of the “from” cells and read the “to” cell (though most of the time I have a “grasp” of the size in both units, sometimes it goes outside my ken…)
And while some folks may be all worked up about what unit to use, the older units have there virtues. F for example has greater precision in the whole degrees. If you convert from F to C you must either lose precision (admitting that the C.x has a not quite right .x portion) or have False Precision by claiming that the .x part is fully accurate and precise… (What GIStemp does.) So if you like a bit more precision in your “XX degrees today” weather forecast, F has it. (And a few other features that I won’t go into here.)
BTW, those who find metric so wonderful, consider the ease with precision that can be gained doing math in fractions when there are no calculators. That is, IMHO, why “factor rich” numbers were used for measurement systems in the past. (360 degrees, 60 minutes, 12 inches, etc). “10” is spectacularly factor poor…
Also, the “foot” and the “rod” are not nearly as “unscientific” as folks think…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/chasing-the-greek-foot/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/making-an-english-foot/
So while I’m quite comfortable working in metric units, I’m also quite happy to keep on using “traditional” units. Sometimes I even use them together … The science does not depend on the units and the units don’t know they are part of a “system” and are supposed to discriminate against the other “system”… they all play well together if you let them…)
And when I’m trying to work something out without benefit of a calculator, those factor rich fraction friendly systems do have an advantage…
Oh, and per the wiki article it looks like the F scale had a similar goal of factor rich along with a desire for ease of division precisely:
“According to a letter Fahrenheit wrote to his friend Herman Boerhaave,[5] his scale built on the work of Ole Rømer, whom he had met earlier. In Rømer’s scale, the two fixed reference points are that brine also freezes at 0 degrees and water boils at 60 degrees.
Here we see that the base system started with 60 divisions. Why 60? Look at the number of factors of 60 and ask why are there 60 minutes in an hour?…
The “brine” in question being “The zero point is determined by placing the thermometer in brine: he used a mixture of ice, water, and ammonium chloride, a salt. This is a type of frigorific mixture. The mixture automatically stabilizes its temperature at 0 °F.”
“He observed that, on this scale, water freezes at 7.5 degrees. Fahrenheit multiplied each value by four in order to eliminate fractions and increase the granularity of the scale (resulting in 30 and 240 degrees, respectively).
he adjusted the scale so that the melting point of ice would be 32 degrees, so that 64 intervals would separate the two, allowing him to mark degree lines on his instruments by simply bisecting the interval six times (since 64 is 2 to the sixth power).”
So you can see that the old systems are no so much “unscientific” as they are suited for fractions and “factor rich” or “division friendly”.
Or put another way, perhaps metric is for people who can’t do fractions 😉