Guest Post by Steven Goddard
We have all seen lots of pictures of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption now, with steam and ash billowing up in the air. The eruption started one month ago, and as the Guardian reports, The eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano is unlikely to have any significant impact on climate but has caused a small fall in carbon emissions, experts say.
The Guardian editors seem to have forgotten that the volcano itself is spewing massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps their kinship with Plane Stupid is having an impact? Plane Stupid’s goal is to stop plane traffic in the UK, and they must be thrilled by the flight ban and the damage to the economy.
Added:
Volcano CO2 budget (CO2 is emitted independent of ash) ~200,000 tons per day X 30 days of eruption = 6,000,000 tons of CO2.
Plane CO2 Budget – assumes half of EU planes haven’t flown for the past six days 340,000 EU tons per day X 0.5 EU shutdown X 6 days = ~1,000,000 tons of savings.
People using alternative transportation (as Anthony and the BBC pointed out) as a replacement for aircraft – cars, trains, battleships , etc. ~1,000,000 tons of extra CO2 Is a battleship more “green” than a jumbo jet?
The total gain is 6,000,000 – 1,000,000 + 1,000,000 = 6,000,000 tons of excess CO2 from the volcano. The temporary aircraft shutdown has little or no net impact on CO2 emissions, but the volcano has a large impact.
Video and reader poll follow.
Below is a video chronology of the glacier and volcano, giving a feel of the events of the past month. First video shows what the glacier looked like prior to the eruption.
The next video shows the first night of the eruption – March 21. Note the similarity to Hawaiian volcanoes – lava fountains and little steam or ash.
By March 24, some steam and ash is starting to appear as glacial meltwater begins to mix with the magma.
By April 14, flash flooding from glacial melt began to pour down the side of the glacier.
The flooding was widespread and devastating downstream.
By April 17, the eruption was primarily steam, CO2 and ash.
Should climate modelers start differentiating between man made CO2 and “organic” natural CO2?
Reader Poll :
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good discussions of carbon isotopes above, especially by F. Engelbeen. In any case, to summarize, neither volcanic CO2 nor jet-fuel (non-biomass) derived CO2 contain 14C isotope. Their 13C to 12C isotope ratios are slightly different, but practically each is around 99% 12C.
Should one collect these gases, purify them, add them to water in the same proportions, they both would taste like Perrier (ignoring mineral effects).
Let me get this straight, here is the big dilemna:
OSLO (Reuters) – A thaw of Iceland’s ice caps in coming decades caused by climate change may trigger more volcanic eruptions by removing a vast weight and freeing magma from deep below ground, scientists said on Friday.
(Not that we all believe this but for arguements sake…)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/16/we-knew-it-was-only-a-matter-of-time/
And then we read that large Volcano eruptions cool the earth:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/volcanoes-cause-climate-change/
So can’t we logically conclude then that if man-made greehouse gases causes global warming (at least for this arguements sake), and according to the “Scientific American” global warming causes more volcanic activity, and more atmospheric ash from increased volcanic activity causes global cooling, then global warming causes global cooling and we are right back where we started and we get a vicious perpetual circle.
(Or maybe natural climate cycles just happen.)
Hockey Schtick (09:45:26) :
Ferdinand Engelbeen (09:22:37) :
Please read the file by Dr. Antti Roine at:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/AnttiRoine/AnttiRoineSeaWaterCO2.doc
which shows that the equilibrium curve for CO2 over seawater is far from saturated with no evidence to suggest that we are anywhere near saturation, and explain why this near instantaneous sink is “much slower”.
The sink rate of CO2 in the oceans and vegetation combined is known with reasonable accuracy: that simply is the difference between what is emitted and what is measured in the atmosphere at the end of the year. We emit about 8 GtC/year as CO2 from fossil fuel burning and we see an increase of 4 GtC/year in the atmosphere. Thus the sink in the oceans is by far not instantaneous, while the sink rate in vegetation includes a lot more factors (sunshine, rain/drought, fertilisers, minerals,…)
The problem is in the diffusion speed of CO2 in water: that is relatively slow. With a lot of pressure and a small amount of water, one reaches equilibrium quite fast, but for the first 100 meters of the oceans and a small pressure difference, it takes time and for the deep oceans, a lot of time. The surface mixing is even more dependent of wind speed than of diffusion speed and the direction depends of where you are on the oceans (temperature, salt content, biolife,…).
A lot of knowledge can be found in the work of Feely e.a. at:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
and following pages.
Further, the (partial) pressure difference of CO2 (pCO2) between the upper part oceans and the atmosphere is only 7 microatm in average, not 100 microatm (compared to pre-industrial), as the upper oceans already have absorbed a fair share of the extra CO2 and the surface-deep ocean exchanges are limited. Thus compared to e.g. a bottle of Coke, the pressure to push CO2 into the ocean’s surface is about a million times smaller…
Well I actually found a Popular Science article about 198 Mercury. According to that article, 1989 Mercury is made by Neutron bombardment of Gold, in a nuclear reactor. Evidently the first samples of 198 Hg were made this way. The resulting green spectral line is supposedly ten times as sharp as the 643.84696 nm Red Cadmium line which was at the time the Wavelength Standard.
Given that 198 Hg which is quite stable is 10.02 % of natural Mercury, I can’t figure out why it is so difficult to get. The NBS folks started playing around with 198Hg for standards purposes way back in the 1940s or maybe 50s.
In any case; bottom line is that different Nuclides most certainly do have different Atomic Spectra.
So what about CO2 that contains either 12C, or 13C, and also might have 16O or 18O or both.
So how do different sorts of plants take up CO2 that contains different Oxygen isotopes as well as different carbons ?
I learned about 198 Hg and its manufacture from Gold in a reactor when I was in University, studying Atomic Physics. Strange to find that Popular Science article after all this time.
George E. Smith (10:12:08) :
That’s all well and good; but isn’t that Limestone Rock itself a fossil, maybe from some ancient ocean sediment ?
Just asking; seems like volcanic CO2 is fossil fuel effluent to me.
Most calcite rocks are calcite deposits from the shells of coccoliths (see http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/tt/eh/ ) shells are built directly from seawater (bi)carbonate, without altering the isotopic composition of the carbon. Deep ocean water is at about zero per mil d13C, that is the standard used for 13C/12C ratio, based on Pee Dee Belemnite (a carbonate rock) in the early days. Ocean surface water is at 1-4 per mil d13C. Thus carbonate rock deposits are around zero per mil d13C, while organics (fresh and fossil) are around -25 per mil and natural gas can reach -40 per mil.
For a nice introduction, see:
http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/carbon13.html
From DirkH (10:10:29) :
So ordinary earth gravity will not do a very good job of isotope separation and its negligible influence will be overwhelmed by any air movement.
Thus you should understand why I’m grinning. I could see that argument being made from a “scientific” basis by others, even though I (and you) know better. “After all, the atmospheric column is very tall so there should be some separation…”
Although after reviewing the Chiefio’s great article again, I am wondering how the plants are preferably absorbing C12 over C13 by even that small difference. What could be the reason for it?
Volcanic CO2 is different because nobody can figure out whom to tax.
Try here
http://books.google.com/books?id=TCEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=Atomic+Spectra+of+Mercury+198&source=bl&ots=-sgLDxs8eg&sig=QLoym2FVmgjrOY2xQdUk1v0YPR0&hl=en&ei=n-7NS5H6OI6kswOQ2ZivDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwATge#v=onepage&q&f=false
George E. Smith (10:29:47) :
From the point of view of the radiation budget of the earth, CO2 isotopic composition is not particularly influential.
Gentlemen,
How much fresh water is being melted by this eruption and where is it going?
Thinking Ocean, thermohaline circulation/ Great Ocean Conveyor, salt water vs. fresh mixing, and possible impact (if any) on ocean currents that regulate climate…
Iceland is right in the middle of it too.
George E. Smith (11:03:53) :
Highly radioactive isotopes are of course going to emit different spectra. That is a different effect from LW absorption by CO2.
Gail Combs (10:20:59) :
However plants throw a monkey wrench into the whole “man’s signature CO2″
“…Plant photosynthetic biochemistry is remarkably specific preferring to fix 12C over 13C by a large margin. Thus during photosynthesis d13C rises due to the preferential abstraction of 12C…. Note also that Respiration is Temperature dependent roughly doubling with a ten degree increase in temperature whereas photosynthesis is by and large not temperature dependent. This confounds attempts to correlate temperature with CO2 concentration which in any case cannot be done by simple regression as has been done recently in this discussion. This is because both are measured dependent variables. For regression to work properly one variable must be independent and known.” from jh (06:17:57) :
See comments near http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/08/nsidcs-walt-meier-responds-to-willis/#comment-364252
Except that the oxygen balance shows that vegetation is a net sink for CO2, thus not adding any CO2 (as mass) to the atmosphere over a year. All biolife together (slightly) increases the 13C/12C ratio because it is a net sink for CO2. Thus, thanks to the oxygen balance it is quite easy to calculate how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and how much by biolife (the “partitioning”). See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5462/2467
and
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
And I had a comprehensive reaction on your remarks at about 3/4th of
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/08/nsidcs-walt-meier-responds-to-willis/
Even for historic sinks/sources, the d13C rate is also known from ice cores for glacial-interglacial periods and transitions, so it is possible to roughly calculate the relative contributions of oceans and vegetation in the CO2 level changes.
stevengoddard (10:23:38) :
Mr. Goddard is right here, but don’t bother going to Wikipedia…just draw the Lewis dot structures yourself! Can’t go breaking that Octet rule now.
–
Regarding
George E. Smith (10:29:47) :
You’re right in that the spectra of C12 and C13 CO2 aren’t technically the same. That’s undergrad OChem/PChem. However, Mr. Goddard DID say that he didn’t think they are statistically different, which I think is what needs to be evaluated (anyone have links to spectra?). And since the difference in reduced mass of a C-O bond is ~4.3% for C12 vs C13 (assuming O16), I’d be interested to see if that makes a significant difference.
–
Sort of on topic, but a bit OT, can anyone explain to me (or provide an appropriate link) how we’ve not passed the essentially complete saturation of the absorption of IR due to CO2? I would think that just a few dozens of meters of air would have enough CO2 in it to absorb ~99% of the light picked up by the absorption bands of CO2. Thus, any increase in CO2 wouldn’t result in a significant increase in IR absorption, and thus no increase in GHG pickup. So can anyone show me (with molar absorptivities/extinction coefficients and reasonable pathlengths) why I’m wrong?
Thanks,
-Scott
“”” Ferdinand Engelbeen (11:05:21) :
George E. Smith (10:12:08) :
That’s all well and good; but isn’t that Limestone Rock itself a fossil, maybe from some ancient ocean sediment ?
Just asking; seems like volcanic CO2 is fossil fuel effluent to me.
Most calcite rocks are calcite deposits from the shells of coccoliths “””
Thanks Ferdinand for the info and the link. It will take me a bit of time to figure out just what the H you are talking about; but I will.
Hey I’ve already lengthened my days out to 37 hours just so I can learn all this stuff you guys post here; it’s not that I have anything better to do while my computer is busily doing my work for me.
So if I understand your bottom line Ferdinand, Volcanic CO2 from Limestone is a slam dunk different from burnt wood or petroleum or coal ? Or did I not read your numbers correctly ?
George
kadaka (11:06:17) :
Although after reviewing the Chiefio’s great article again, I am wondering how the plants are preferably absorbing C12 over C13 by even that small difference. What could be the reason for it?
Enzymatic affinity at the binding site.
George E. Smith (11:03:53) :
You’re discussing atomic spectroscopy here (you even use that term). I think everyone else is discussing IR spectroscopy (requires a change in dipole moment from the stretching/bending of a covalent bond). Thus, the effect of isotopic change is much less (though not zero, as it changes the reduced mass).
-Scott
enneagram (10:15:27) :
Henry Pool (09:15:13) :What is it evil, then?,Evil promotes ignorance and agnosticism.
Henry: I agree
That is why I like WUWT
it is the best!
George E. Smith (10:29:47) :
Here is an interesting article describing the spectral differences of various CO2 isotopic configurations. I do know that climate models do not differentiate between CO2 isotopes in their radiation budgets.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac00284a060
kadaka (11:06:17) :
Although after reviewing the Chiefio’s great article again, I am wondering how the plants are preferably absorbing C12 over C13 by even that small difference. What could be the reason for it?
The reason is that in biological reactions, form and size matters. The chain of reactions which start to catch a molecule of CO2 and transfer that into hydrocarbons is done by large folded molecules (enzymes if you want) where CO2 (in form and electrical load) fits like a key in a lock. 13CO2 is fractionally larger, thus doesn’t fit that nice in the lock, still occasionally is used, but less frequently (at a slower rate? Don’t know exactly) than 12CO2.
“George E. Smith (10:05:46) :
Just one small nit to pick Steve:-
O=C-O , not O=C=O
Like I said, a small nit.
And from the top it looks like: O-C=O , not O-C-O
Actually, I have never seen CO2 depicted as O-C=O, always as O=C=O.
As a starter, the C will be positively charged (contributed 4 electrons, but participates in only 3 bonds), while the O- part will be negatively charged.
More advanced is the argument that O=C-O doesn’t respect the symmetry of the molecule (Dooh, where oo is the infinity symbol): CO2 has a.o. a center of inversion, which O=C-O does not have.
For a full list of the MOs, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_orbital_diagram#Carbon_Dioxide_MO_Diagram and click on the diagrams. [1]
Sjoerd
Note [1]: I just noticed that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MO_Diagram_CO2.jpg has an error: the label MO6 is used twice, while MO7 cannot be found. The lower MO6 (the one next to the MO5) should be MO7.
“”” stevengoddard (10:23:38) :
George E. Smith (10:05:46)
Hmmm… Wikipedia says differently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide “””
“””
Hu McCulloch (10:38:55) :
My bad — Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide shows the O’s at 180 deg (and, contra George E Smith above, with two double bonds). “””
“”” Hu McCulloch (10:31:55) :
I seem to recall that the two O’s are not at 180 deg from one another, but more like 120 deg. “””
You guys are so slow.
My molecules were drawn in 3-D
Z-Axis—> O=C-O rotate 90 about Z; O-C=O
Steve’s Molecule O=C=O rotate 90 about Z; O-C-O
Remember the carbon bonds are in the Tetrahedral configuration that forms the DIAMOND LATTICE , so any pair of bonds, is at 90 degrees to the remaining pair; for any possible choice of bonds.
So the molecule looks like my drawing with one pair seen edge on.
OK to be fair to Steve, if I rotate MY molecule 45 deg about Z then I DO get HIS molecule with the lines closer together. Hey it’s all fake anyway.
Steve the reason I draw mine my way, is that it explains why the 15 micron absorption band is two degenerate bending modes which are at right angles.
So O=C=O cannot easily bend in the plane of the screen because that has to stretch and compress the bond pair; but the side by side pair can both bend in and out of the screen plane.
Since the two pairs are at right angles (NOT 120 deg), then one pair can flap up and down, while the other pair can flap side to side; giving tow modes which are frequency indistinguishable.
Like I said Steve it’s a small Nit; but it helps understand why the degenerate pair of identical bending modes in the 15 micron band.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (10:51:24) :”The sink rate of CO2 in the oceans and vegetation combined is known with reasonable accuracy: that simply is the difference between what is emitted and what is measured in the atmosphere at the end of the year.”
Why is it not equally plausible that CO2 has been rising since the last ice age primarily due to decreasing solubility with rising temperature?
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/co2-levels-in-atmosphere-are-damped-by.html
George E. Smith (11:31:41) :
So if I understand your bottom line Ferdinand, Volcanic CO2 from Limestone is a slam dunk different from burnt wood or petroleum or coal ? Or did I not read your numbers correctly ?
George
Most CO2 from the oceans, rock deposits, volcanic vents,… indeed is around zero per mil d13C, while all organics contain far less 13C, depending of the route that it was manufactured. In quantity, the amounts in (deep) oceans, carbonate rock deposits etc… by far exceed organics (both fresh and fossil). Thus indeed the isotopic composition of CO2 from volcanoes is quite different of CO2 from burning organics…
As a retied vulcanologist, I’m far more interested in the truly nasty molecules that are emitted from this or practically any volcano. We’ll start with arsenic, followed by mercury, then antimony, lead, and cadmium–basically any of the other metallic transition elements found on the periodic chart. Forget about CO2–those environmental soothsayers and hysterical warmers can fret about CO2 all they want, but that’s not the problem.
Then to balance the other side of the chemical equation for those nasty metals we find the sulfur, which is a major concern, but don’t forget to include others in that group such as selenium, tellurium, and bismuth.
I’ve only heard them mention sulfur, but there’s a whole range of far nastier things than CO2 in that volcanic brew.
The discussion of CO2 balances seems to ignore the existence of feedback.
The most interesting thing about CO2 is that its abundance is extremely low. It was far higher long ago but since the evolution of plants and shell forming animals the level has declined dramatically. These life forms die and find there way to the bottom of the sea, trapping CO2 as they do so.
If you are looking for the causes of climate change, we are just beginners, these guys have been destroying the atmosphere for millions of years! If it were not for volcanos these evil, selfish overconsumers would have killed off almost all plant and animal life long ago!
Life exists in an abundance that is only just about supportable by the tiny amount of CO2 available. That further implies that there is a long term equilibrium which is normally determined by the limited release of CO2 from volcanos. Since the level of CO2 has apparently been extremely constant over thousands of years it also implies that the biosphere quickly mops up any temporary increase and dies back when levels fall. When I say quickly I mean 100 years or so.
All the scare stories suggest that extra CO2 will reduce the rate of shell and coral growth but that does not make sense since many of these species evolved and thrived at a time when the concentration of CO2 was higher and temperature was higher too. My guess is that it will not be long before the species that prefer higher CO2 levels will begin to thrive and as they die the rate of CO2 sequestering will dramatically increase. CO2 levels will then fall back to below current levels.
I wish it were not so because it would be good for us if the CO2 concentration could be kept at a higher level to aid food production but I am afraid this is just a temporary bonus that we should enjoy while we can.