Results: Lab experiment regarding CO2 "snow" in Antarctica at -113°F (-80.5°C) – not possible

Frozen CO2 at the poles of Mars - but not possible on Earth
Frozen CO2 at the poles of Mars - but not possible on Earth

A couple of days ago WUWT carried a story, talking about intense cold in Antarctica, carbon dioxide, and the icecap of Mars. This one passage stirred up a significant debate:

According to Weather Underground, Vostok, Antarctica is forecast to reach -113F on Friday.  That is four degrees below the freezing point of CO2 and would cause dry (CO2) ice to freeze directly out of the air.

It seemed (at the time) a reasonable statement. The freezing point of CO2 is  -109.3 degrees Fahrenheit (-78.5 degrees C). There’s been mentions of this supposed phenomenon of CO2 freezing out of the air before on other blogs and websites. One of the best examples was even an entry in the website “ask a scientist” where the question of CO2 freezing out of the air was posed, and the answer from an Argonne National Laboratory scientist seemed to indicate that CO2 could indeed precipitate as a solid from the air if the temperature was low enough at Earth’s south polar ice cap, specifically at Vostok Station, which holds the record for the lowest surface temperature recorded on Earth at −89.2°C (−128.6°F)

Certainly, at least some of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the poles does freeze out during the winter. However, there is not enough frozen out to accumulate to any extent at the present.

David R. Cook

Atmospheric Research Section

Environmental Research Division

Argonne National Laboratory

So, it seemed possible. But as WUWT commenters soon pointed out, temperature is only part of the equation needed to deposit CO2 as a solid from the free atmosphere at that temperature.

Soon we were discussing gas laws, phase diagrams, and partial pressures. The debate mainly centered on whether or not this phase diagram for carbon dioxide applied to  1 atmosphere of pressure of pure CO2 versus simply 1 atmosphere of pressure independent of the purity of the gas.

The author of the post, Steven Goddard wrote in comments:

The phase diagram shows unambiguously that the equilibrium state of CO2 at one atmosphere at 113F is solid. The freezing point of CO2 is -109F at 1 atmosphere.

http://www.chemicalogic.com/download/co2_phase_diagram.pdf

The PDF referenced doesn’t translate well to the blog size format, but this less detailed phase diagram for CO2 does fit and was mentioned in comments also:

CO2_phase_diagram

Since many of us know from experience that with ice, be it water ice or CO2 (dry) ice, that a phase change can occur directly from solid to gas (sublimation). It seemed reasonable to conclude that the reverse could be possible, going from a gas to a solid as long as the temperature was below the “triple point” of CO2 as well as the freezing point at 1ATM.

The freezing point/sublimation point of CO2 at 1ATM is at -78.5C (-109.3F). In the situation described in the forecast for Vostok station, the temperature was forecast to reach below the freezing point for CO2 at -80.5 C (-113F ). It seemed reasonable then to concludes that CO2 would freeze right out of the air, much like frost does from water vapor. Plus we had a statement from a  scientist at a National Laboratory saying it was possible also. What’s not to like?

One small detail: partial  pressure.

The concentration of CO2 in the free atmosphere is very small. Thus the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.0004 atmospheres. But wait there’s more. Vostok station is at a high elevation, 3288 meters above sea level  (10,787 feet) and the atmosphere is thinner. Thus the partial pressure of CO2 is even lower.

Commenter George E. Smith summed it up pretty well with this paragraph:

At -78.5 deg C (-109F), that equilibrium occurs at a partial pressure of CO2 of 760 mm Hg, one atmosphere. Below that pressure, there isn’t enough abundance of CO2 molecules in the vapor phase for collisions with the solid surface to occur at a fast enough rate to make up for the ones that escaped; so the solid CO2; dry ice, will continue to sublimate.

Basically, there are so few CO2 molecules in the free atmosphere, sublimation rules over deposition as a solid. Yes some CO2 may deposit on a surface at at -80.5 C (-113F ), but it would quickly sublimate back into the free atmosphere, and thus accumulation would not occur.

Meanwhile WUWT reader Ric Werme had written to Dr. David Cook of Argonne National Lab to ask about his original opinion he wrote for “ask a scientist” web site. Ric reports he responded with this:

Ric,

You are correct. In my attempts at being simplistic I made a mistake in my answer to “Freezing CO2″ on the Ask-A-Scientist page. -57 C is the boiling point of CO2. The freezing point of CO2 at atmospheric pressure is -78.5 C (-109.3 F). If the temperature reaches -113 F at Vostok, Antarctica, some carbon dioxide might freeze out of the air, assuming that the carbon dioxide vapor pressure drops to its saturation vapor pressure.

The vapor pressure must reach the saturation vapor pressure for dew or frost to form. This happens at the dew point or frost point temperature, which is dependent on atmospheric pressure and the absolute amount of vapor in the air. As atmospheric temperature increases, the dew/frost point temperature increases. As atmospheric pressure increases, the vapor pressure increases. At very low temperatures, the dew/frost point temperature is very low.

When the temperature of the surface (whether grass or a car window) is below freezing, frost will usually form instead of dew, although water can be super-cooled and not produce dew, fog, or clouds in some cases. Surfaces on the Earth cool off sooner than the air, so dew/frost will normally form on them before fog (water or ice) forms in the air.

The temperature being at “freezing” or below does not imply that frost will form on surfaces or in the air. The vapor pressure must be high enough (saturation vapor pressure) and the temperature low enough (the frost point temperature) for frost to form.

So it seems, Dr. Cook (and our own Steve Goddard) made the basic and simple error of not taking vapor pressure into account. Given our human experience with the everyday freezing of water, we don’t often think about it. I didn’t catch it either initially, nor did some WUWT commenters.

It does demonstrate though, how little CO2 there is in our atmosphere, we can’t even precipitate it to solid under any natural condition of earth.

But, even with the debate apparently settled,  the CO2 freezing question was still all in the realm of  opinions and phase diagrams. Some people really wanted to see some empirical proof. Some thoughts on experiments were tossed about.

Enter WUWT reader Dr. Thomas Thatcher of the University of Rochester who had not only an idea for an experiment, but the means with which to carry it out. He had a lab freezer which would “maintains -80˚C (-112˚F) in my lab, and it can be set as low as -86˚C (-122˚F).”.

He proposed that he could use that freezer to do a test with dry ice:

The argument, as far as I can tell, is that at the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2, dry ice at -113F will sublimate faster than it forms (which may be different than how a pure CO2 atmosphere would behave). I am in a position to test this, as described above.

Based on the arguments presented here, the two postulated outcomes are,

1) significant loss of mass, as the sublimation rate exceeds the deposition rate

2) no change, or negligible gain in mass.

(I suspect that any gain in mass will evaporate on the short walk from the freezer to the balance.)

It’s admittedly an imperfect experiment. But I expect the outcome will be rather obvious; the dry ice will be gone in the morning. We’ll see.

He conducted his experiment overnight between Thursday and Friday, and writes:

The freezer is a VWR brand ultralow temperature upright freezer, similar to models shown here.

http://www.vwrsp.com/catalog/product/index.cgi?catalog_number=14230-120&inE=1&highlight=14230-120

It is set to -86C, the temperature typically rises 1-3C when opened, and recovers in about 30 minutes. (Factory temperature calibration was NIST-traceable but it has not been recalibrated since it was installed here.) The samples were loaded at 4:30 pm and removed at 9:30 am, so the freezer will have been largely undisturbed during that time.

The interior is mostly filled with stainless steel racks that hold cardboard boxes for storing biological samples.  I placed the test samples in two boxes on the bottom shelf at the rear of the freezer, the coldest zone and closest to the temperature probe.

One sample was placed in an open box with extra holes cut to allow air circulation. The other sample was placed in small zip top plastic bag inside a cardboard box. The samples were weighed by difference before being placed in the freezer and after removal in the morning. Additional weighings were taken to estimate the amount of sublimation during the weighing procedure and the amount of water that might condense on the boxes, but these amounts proved insignificant next to the overall results.

The samples were placed in the freezer at 4:30pm (reading -82C) and removed at 10:00am (reading -83C).

Open container, start weight 36.5g dry ice, end weight 0g, amount sublimated 100%.

Zip-top bag, start weight 27.6g dry ice, end weight 25.3g, amount sublimated 8.3%

Proving, I think, that CO2 will freeze and remain frozen at below -78.5C if the partial pressure of CO2 is near 1 ATM, but the CO2 will rapidly sublimate is the partial pressure of CO2 is near atmospheric normal.

And he concludes:

Bottom line, 40g of dry ice placed in an open container at -82C completely sublimated overnight, while 27g of dry ice placed in a zip top bag retained 90% of its mass.  This proves two things, first, that the temperature of the freezer did not exceed -78.5C for any appreciable period of time, and second that yes indeed, the partial pressure of CO2 is the key to the problem.

Best of all, he sent photos of the experiment he conducted:

IMG_1087
Interior of the freezer showing sample box racks
IMG_1088
The placement of the two sample boxes for the CO2 sublimation experiment
IMG_1089
The two sample boxes with dry ice of equal weights, enclosed on the left, open on the right, just before they were placed into the freezer for the night.
IMG_1090
The sample boxes immediately after removal the next morning.
IMG_1091
With the plastic bag removed, showing the leftmost sample still about 90% intact.

Thanks to everyone who participated in the debate, including Ric Werme for his correspondence help and especially Tom Thatcher for conducting the experiment and taking photos.

We all learned something, we had a little fun, some online yelling occurred, and some egos were bruised. Overall though it was worthwhile that this myth of “CO2 snow at Vostok station” was finally put to rest.

4.3 6 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

143 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Benjamin P.
June 13, 2009 7:48 am

W (06:21:37) :
“I really hate phase diagrams. Geologists have to suffer through endless phase diagrams in school, supposedly explaining why one obscure mineral appears before another in a rock, only to never use them again.”
What!? Who doesn’t like phase diagrams! There was no suffering from this geologist when I was learning about phase diagrams (except for when I was trying to construct them). But I use them all the time now days.

Squidly
June 13, 2009 8:06 am

This is awesome! EXACTLY how science SHOULD be done!
I had originally replied in the original thread to Crosspatch and posted the quotes from David R. Cook from the “Ask A Scientist” site link that he had provided. It is wonderful to see things like this emerge from an true and honest vetting process.
To Crosspatch: Your original “Uhm, no. Vapor pressure and all of that.” comment turns out to be right on! Congratulations!
This was fun!!! Let’s do it again!

Squidly
June 13, 2009 8:11 am

Also, I am sorry I missed most all of the fun and games from the original thread on this subject (work and all that). I am simply astounded by the enormous volume of truly intelligent and resourceful individuals that frequent and contribute to this blog. A heartfelt salute goes out to all! 🙂

Medic1532
June 13, 2009 8:14 am

Got to jump on the bandwagon a wonderful resolution to the question of CO2 snowclear easy to understand for this layman and easy to relate to others even without visual aids. JG

Gary
June 13, 2009 8:18 am

Mr. Wizard, let’s do more experiments.

Leon Brozyna
June 13, 2009 8:21 am

What is this? Some kind of science blog?
And that, kiddies, is why frost doesn’t always form on daddy’s car windows — except when he’s running late to work and all the windows are frosted over with a thick coating — but that’s another ‘law’.

Tom Bakewell
June 13, 2009 8:30 am

As my favorite robot Johnny #5 used to say with great excitement “Data!”
I sure love this site for all that it does so well.

Neo
June 13, 2009 8:33 am

What kind of effect would CO2 precipitating out of the air have on ice core data ?

Alan Bates
June 13, 2009 8:39 am

“ONE TEST IS WORTH A THOUSAND EXPERT OPINIONS”
Sorry, NO. You only need one perosn who understands what the data means. We are not talking about the effect of a wide range of random variables here. This is basic physical chemistry data at the level of 1st year undergraduate.
I honestly cannot see why the refrigerator experiment proves anything more than the phase diagram. The phase diagram merely presents the results of a large number of such experiments done under far better controlled conditions.
As a physical chemist all my working life the answer was all there in the phase diagram and needed no extra work. Even if the fridge experiment went the other way it would merely mean that the experimental design failed.
“I really hate phase diagrams.”
I don’t – they are wonderful things! The value of phase diagrams is that they often are on a log scale and allow the results of a huge range of variation to be summarised on a simple diagram. The main thing to remember is that they generally deal with equilibrium conditions. It says nothing about how fast equilibrium is reached.
Jolly good knock about stuff, though!

Elizabeth
June 13, 2009 8:40 am

Now, if we could only apply this sort of rational debate to AGW theory.

June 13, 2009 8:42 am

Just a thought!
Can we debunk the whole ‘CO2 will cause runaway global warming’ with a simple experiment – say, by putting sealed bags of different concentrations of CO2 into an oven and see what happens?
Sorry – I’m just a geologist. To paraphrase the late great Jack Eddy: I like rocks.

peter_dtm
June 13, 2009 8:48 am

and another big thank you from a lurker on this site; though I did briefly ask a question on this one !
Thank you to all; now to find out how to get this to the Head of Science at the kids’ school so he can show them just what SCIENCE is all about.

June 13, 2009 8:51 am

I propose a home experiment to show how CO2 levels can be the result of global warming rather than the cause. I know the science blogs talk a lot about the solubility of CO2 in the ocean as a function of temperature; this just brings the concept home.
1. Go to the refrigerator, take out and open two cans of soda.
2, Pour a little out of each can into glasses to verify that both have the same levels of CO2 while cold.
3. Put one of the open cans back in the refrigerator and leave the other on the kitchen table.
4. Wait six hours.
5. Pour a little of each can into glasses and note the level of fizz in each.
6. Note that the can that was on the kitchen table lost more dissolved CO2 than the can from the refrigerator.
7. Theorize whether the extra CO2 from the can on the table kept the kitchen warm, or whether the warm kitchen caused more CO2 to come out of solution.
Please don’t try this experiment with beer. The result would be the same but it would be… well just wrong.

June 13, 2009 8:57 am

I’ve been watching this (and the earlier thread) with great interest. This is what chemical engineers do routinely – work with chemicals (including CO2) and their phase changes (of all types, but more frequently liquid to vapor and the reverse) – and at various pressures. We deal with systems ranging from high vacuums up to many thousands of pounds pressure.
Partial pressures are important. Some commenter (I don’t recall which) got it right by asking why is there dew or frost some mornings and not others, when the air temperature is the same.
I don’t expect those who are not chemical engineers to fully grasp all of this, but I do expect the climate-modeling scientists to understand and follow the basics of physics. That they do not is apparent, and that is of grave concern in the ongoing debate over Global Warming via climate models.

John M
June 13, 2009 9:01 am

It’s gratifying to see so many people getting involved in this question and it’s also great that it resulted in an experiment that everyone agrees on. Let’s not go too far though and imply that the CO2 phase diagram and other “models” can’t be useful. It did, after all, “predict” the right result.
If Anthony reflects a bit about dew point, I would wager even he might admit to at least a little bit of chagrin at having missed the analogy early on.
But there is an important point to be made about complexity and the limits of models. Some of the discussions in the previous thread raised important questions that the simple “model” of the phase diagram couldn’t address. (Effect of water ice, locally high concentrations of CO2, etc.)
Here, in my view, is the important lesson: Models aren’t worthless, but many of them work the best under equilibrium conditions and under scales of observations closest to those under which they were developed and tested. Paul Coppin’s (04:47:36) question about water’s sublimation is a case in point. If you simply look at the phase diagram of water, you dismiss the question out of hand. But I seem to recall a similar “sidebar” discussion by one of my profs along the same line. As I vaguely recall, something about “walking” along the phase diagram at a microscopic level related to locally high concentrations of water vapor. I’m not saying that’s what happens, it just that you can’t dismiss it out of hand with a simple phase diagram.
And here’s where there is an important distinction between the CO2 phase diagram and climate models (which I think is the underlying current here). The farther you get from equilibrium, the farther you get from the relevant scale at which models were developed, and the more moving parts you have in a system (the more dynamic it is), the harder to model and the less “certain” the predictions.
Also, once again I think dearime (05:32:20) has a good point. Our understanding of phase diagrams for simple systems comes only after centuries of replication and thorough vetting by the scientific community. It wasn’t there when Guy-Lussac et al were first doing their stuff. Not to elevate or denigrate climate scientists to too high or too low a level, but their understanding of climate is about on par with Ben Franklin’s understanding of gas laws before the theories and experiments all came together decades later.
In fact, not to stretch an analogy too far, but as much as a genius a Franklin was, would it have made any sense for him to have crafted the country’s energy policy from 1780-1880 on the sole basis that he was the electricity expert of his day?

D. King
June 13, 2009 9:06 am

Dr. Thomas Thatcher
Thanks so much.
Katlab (06:51:11) :
Okay, let me get this straight. You had a hypothesis, tested it, found it not to be true, and so abandoned your hypothesis. What the hell kind of scientist are you?
Too funny!

Fuelmaker
June 13, 2009 9:08 am

dearieme:
Thank you for the explanation.
Gary Pearse:
This is a little out of my field but the whole measurement of CO2 bubbles in the the Vostok core has always bothered me. Has anyone developed the CO2/H20 phase change diagrams at these temperatures? Although certainly pure CO2 snow cannot exist at these temperatures, the water snow will have significant CO2 included. We know that rain absorbs CO2 and the equilibrium states at normal temperatures are well known.
I am also very suspect about how cores could be brought up from great pressures without lots of fractures and migrations and exchanges into the surrounding ice. I’d like to see a comparison of the CO2 content of the melted ice to the bubbles. I suspect there was a lot of data processing to get those neatly correlated CO2/air temperature results.

steven mosher
June 13, 2009 9:14 am

All I saw were some pictures Anthony! Before we draw any final conclusions I think the funding of that scientist in question should be questioned! Has the guy who did this experiment ever published in a peer reviewed journal?
….
Wait, he showed me his data, he explained his method CLEARLY. I could, if were skeptical, repeat his experiment.
Imagine, if our good scientist had published the results in Nature. In that publication a scientists Steig could claim results without providing a clear description of the methods.

KBK
June 13, 2009 10:00 am

It seems that Dr. Cook still has some misconceptions:
The vapor pressure must reach the saturation vapor pressure for dew or frost to form.
True.
This happens at the dew point or frost point temperature, which is dependent on atmospheric pressure
No, only on the partial (“vapor”) pressure. But, is there a small effect on the CO2 partial pressure if atmospheric pressure changes?
and the absolute amount of vapor in the air.
Yes, assuming he means partial pressure.
As atmospheric temperature increases, the dew/frost point temperature increases.
No, it remains the same. If the temperature of the dry ice doesn’t change, the partial pressure of CO2 is unchanged.
As atmospheric pressure increases, the vapor pressure increases.
No, it remains the same, so long as the temperature of the frozen CO2 stays constant.
At very low temperatures, the dew/frost point temperature is very low.
Yes, the CO2 will freeze out, and the frost point cannot be significantly higher than the air temperature.

deadwood
June 13, 2009 10:10 am

Benjamin P. (07:48:56) :
What!? Who doesn’t like phase diagrams! There was no suffering from this geologist when I was learning about phase diagrams (except for when I was trying to construct them). But I use them all the time now days.

Ha! Right! And the 3D ones? Those still give me bad dreams.

Flanagan
June 13, 2009 10:17 am

rephelan :
I don’t see why I would be next. I think I behave quite peacefully. Moreover, I was right about the CO2 deposition :0)

John M
June 13, 2009 10:29 am

KBK (10:00:08) :
Careful.

As atmospheric temperature increases, the dew/frost point temperature increases.

No, it remains the same. If the temperature of the dry ice doesn’t change, the partial pressure of CO2 is unchanged.

Take a look at the diagram on this page.
http://webwormcpt.blogspot.com/2008/08/air-dew-point-conversion-chart.html
If you take a given volume of air with a given water content and compress it (raise its pressure), the dew point does indeed change. If there is no condensation, the partial pressure of water will increase, but not the mole fraction. Meterologically at a single location, it’s not a big deal, but if you’re pumping air around or dealing with large changes in altitude (and hence air pressure), it’s important to recognize.

Aelric
June 13, 2009 10:31 am

I too have followed this topic with interest: I was surprised that no mention of the analogous situation of solubility was made. A sparingly soluble salt, calcium carbonate, say, will dissolve (in water) to such an extent as to saturate the solvent with calcium ions and carbonate ions (neglecting the subsequent acid-base reactions of carbonate with water) IF IT CAN. If sufficient solvent is present such that the saturation concentration (of either ion) is not reached, all of the salt will dissolve (eventually). Temperature, of course, quantitatively affects what that saturation limit is.
As long as the atmosphere above CO2(s) is not saturated with CO2(g) (at that temperature) – particularly difficult given atmospheric replenishment due to wind or thermal gradients – any solid CO2 formed will continue to sublime. The experiment described here showed this nicely.

Mike Ramsey
June 13, 2009 10:36 am

Thank you Anthony and Dr. Thatcher. This is what science is supposed to be about. Formulate a hypothesis. Design an experiment where one variable is changed and the rest controlled. Develop check questions and the means to test them (i.e. the plastic bag). Collect data. Analyze the data. Report the experimental procedure and the results so that others can replicate the experiment.
Good job!
–Mike Ramsey