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 :
kadaka (12:47:49) :
Well, first was E.M. Smith’s great article on why detecting an anthropogenic CO2 signature based on atmospheric C12/C13 ratios is bunk.
I think that E.M. Smith should look at the overall balance: it is certain that more CO2 is absorbed by the biosphere than released. Whatever the pathway, this increases the 13C content of the atmosphere. But we see a decrease, which is only from fossil fuel burning, as all other possible CO2 sources have higher 13C/12C ratio’s than found in the atmosphere.
Now I have found Dr. Roy Spencer’s article right here on WUWT that lays out about the same.
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??
So I am now up to two trusted sources which tell me that anyone telling me they can find a definite man-made CO2 signature and exact atmospheric amounts based on C12/C13 ratios, is not speaking out of the normal orifice used for transmitting verbal information.
I do respect both sources, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be wrong. I responded to Dr. Spencer at the same page, see my comment at:
Ferdinand Engelbeen (15:37:53) :
Thus even during natural variations, the d13C decrease from the emissions by far dominates the change in ratio’s, that is why you don’t see a difference between short term and long term variations in d13C.
Tim Clark (13:01:32) :
I definitely phrased the question that way intentionally. The discussion here already knew there was a preference biochemically (presumably due to the kinetic isotope effect)…what I wanted to know (my own curiousity) was if the C13O2 molecule was slightly smaller than the C12O2 one. Presumably they have the same size at absolute zero, but at finite temperatures I’m hypothesizing that the C13O2 should be smaller due to less stretching of the bond “spring”. Anyone have insight on this?
-Scott
Gail Combs (12:30:08) :
Yes, I answered the “original” question. Humans are emitting 265 to 531 times the CO2 from this Iceland volcano if it were to continue for a year. Who knows how long this eruption will last – two weeks ? 1 month ?
Yes, I realize there is more than one active volcano:
It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is … factor of about 100 smaller than the sources from human activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere
If this volcano was at the 300,000 tons/day level, and continued for a full year, that would be 109 tons of CO2. Still less than half of the estimated 255 million tons that might be caused by volcanoes, each year.
At the high end of 230 million tonnes/year, that is 0.8% of the human emissions for that year. And that doesn’t count “land use changes”, such as cutting down forests for cattle ranching.
Do you realize “active volcano” doesn’t always mean that volcano is erupting at the moment ?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/active_volcano
“…or has the capability of doing so”.
And even an actual “eruption” can be trivial (first new activity/unrest volcano):
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/
a marked increase in seismic activity since 28 March. Small steam plumes normally rose 10 m above the crater.
10 meter steam plumes are not going to add much to that expected 130-230 million tonnes of volcanic CO2 per year.
As for the “5000 active volcanoes underwater”:
http://www.crystalinks.com/volcanoesunderwater.html
Europe’s largest underwater volcano is active according to the scientists who have been monitoring it for years
Whoa, sounds ominous.
There has never been an eruption of the volcano in recorded history.
Huh. Active, but never an eruption in recorded history.
A lot less ominous.
So, for an average year, expect volcanoes to contribute less than 1% of the CO2 that humans emit by burning fuel. Even less, if you count things like burning down forests.
Of course, if there is ever a really huge volcano, with a VEI of 8:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index
it might emit more CO2 than humans do that year.
The last one seems to be about 26,500 years ago, so maybe we’re due.
A comment on d13C excursions.
A decline of δ13C in the instrumental record is often cited as an “anthropogenic fingerprint” on CO2. The logic being that fossil fuels contain very little 13C and therefore CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is diluting 13C relative to 12C.
This line of reasoning is totally fallacious. δ13C declined sharply in the early Holocene. It pretty well declines whenever CO2 levels rise. Here is just one example of many…
Here’s an example from early Holocene speleothems…
There is an overwhelming body of evidence that δ13C has declined when over all CO2 levels have risen. This was the case long before Colonel Drake drilled his first oil well near Titusville, PA in 1859.
Tom in Florida (13:23:28) :
Perhaps you meant to say “6% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from use of fossil fuels”. Since CO2 makes up approx .038 % of our atmosphere, and CO2 from fossil fuel use is 6% of that, the real number would be in the neighborhood of ….. a really, really tiny amount
Sorry for the confusion, indeed, 6% of the CO2 in the atmosphere still is of human origin, not 6% of the atmosphere…
But that doesn’t change the fact that humans are responsible for near the full increase (30%) of CO2 in the atmosphere, but most of the “human” CO2 molecules were replaced by (deep ocean) natural ones over the years.
It can be compared to the difference between the turnover and the gain of a factory: in this case human CO2 is only a small part of the turnover, but fully responsible for the gain, as the emissions are about twice the gain. Without the emissions, there would be a net loss, whatever the size or frequency of the other transactions.
Environmentalist Wacko Credo:
From Gaia all blessings flow. CO2 emitted by Gaia is natural, a blessing.
If Man, in Hubris, seeks to imitate our God, Gaia, emitting CO2, then his act is an abomination.
Gaia will punish Abominable Man with Terrible Events….Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Volcanos. (Just ask Danny Glover).
Tim Clark (13:01:32) :
I don’t think you meant biochemical and then inferred a physical chemist would know. You should ask someone who has had Enzymology; and actually it makes 2.03% difference from corn chloroplasts in one of the most quoted pioneering work (peer reviewed ;~P)
The story doesn’t determine what caused the fractionation in the ultimate enzymic reactions (interesting that it is the bicarbonate ion which is mainly used). The first fractionation at the air-water boundary indeed is a matter of kinetics (the same happens at the air-ocean border in both directions), but as for many biochemical reactions size and 3D-structure is important, I still wonder if that also is the case for 13CO2 vs. 12CO2 incorporation.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (09:13:20) :
I stop flogging that horse, Ferdinand. E.M. Smith shot it dead a while ago.
Here’s a new show CNBC is airing TONIGHT called:
CARBON HUNTERS (First showing TONIGHT: April 20, 10pm (EST-US)):
Making Money Out Of Thin Air
CNBC takes a revealing look at the booming, lucrative and often bizarre world of carbon trading.
ABOUT THE SHOW
As corporations, governments and consumers hunt for ways to reduce and offset their greenhouse gas emissions, a whole new breed of businessman has been born. Welcome to the world of the Carbon Hunters. They are scouring the planet in search of new ways to capture carbon; lassoing every dime they can, often with shams and scams that make our heads spin. They then are trading the resulting – and often lucrative – credits.
Many believe carbon trading is a process vital to stopping climate change. And just as many are skeptical. What’s not debatable is that carbon offset trading is emerging as one of the century’s biggest business, political and environmental stories. But behind the carbon credits on an airline ticket, shares in a tree-planting scheme or a project that will supposedly suck carbon out of the air, lies a tale of dubious truth which can bring disaster to both the poor and the investors and people in the developing world.
Carbon Hunters follows Vancouver-based businessman Shawn Burns and other hunters around the world, as they seek out new and interesting opportunities such as methane capture projects in the Philippines, carbon exchange houses in Mumbai and Chicago and the golden wheat fields of Alberta, in the world’s first regulated carbon market.
It’s a curious, burgeoning industry that is changing the nature of business – and one that, depending on who you believe, just may help save the planet.
paullm – Previously, I’ve found CNBC to be Green biased. I’ll check them out tonight and see if that continues to be the case. There should be multiple viewings in the AM and in the future.
For brevity I am deleting the additional listing of other shows which you can see by visiting the CARBON HUNTERS website (www.cnbc.com/id/35872593/).
2200 hours on 20/04/2010 (UK Summer Time) all of UK airspace declared OPEN.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (09:13:20) :
“About 6% of the current atmosphere is from the use of fossil fuels, deduced from the 13C/12C ratio. ”
Is 6% correct as CO2 is about 380 ppm which is about 0.03%? With 21% Oxygen and 78% Nitrogen all the other gases are part of the remaining 1%. I suspect your 6% was a typo?
“George E. Smith (13:19:13) :
http://www.chem.ucsb.edu/coursepages/05spring/1C-Perona/hybridization.pdf”
Which uses the VSEPR model. Which is a *model* that works most of the time, but is not exact. LCAO is better, but requires much more calculations.
Luckily, VSPER is good enough for most applications. That’s why students usually are taught the VSEPR model first. Only those that specialize in theoretical chemistry go on and study the better methods.
More correct is it to look at all atoms at the same time, form symmetry adjusted atomic orbitals, and recombine them into molecular orbitals.
VSEPR only looks at pairs of atoms in a molecule. It acts like one C=O bond is totally independent of the other C=O bond. VSEPR typically falls apart for benzene like structures, where bonds are not localized between two atoms but smeared out over the molecule.
The difference here comes down to this: one of the lone pairs on one O lies in the same plane as the double bond between the C and the other O, and interacts with it. The interaction is such that the bonds is lengthened to cover all three atoms. In fact, LCAO shows us that the two Os cannot be told apart anymore: their p-orbitals contribute equally to each bond!
Both ‘extended double bonds’ have the same energy and are degenerated. As a result, any linear combination of the those two is also acceptable. Generally speaking: A’ = A*cos(phi) + B*sin(phi); B’ = -A*sin(phi) + b*cos(phi).
Only by breaking the symmetry, e.g. applying an external electromagnetic field or bending the molecule, the two bonds are split up. And yes, that has implications for the IR spectrum of CO2. But the bonds stay extended: One will be on the inside/outside of the bended molecule, the other will be perpendicular to bending. You still won’t be able to differentate between the O atoms.
We, “Humans”, nothing but oxygen breathing microscopic molds, living on molten lava slag which we call ground, and which crystallizes as mountain chains and cools also as amorphous powdery lands, could we even allucinate we can control environment?
Ask AL the Magnificent and their followers of the Gaia Cult just to try to shut that smokey iceland volcano, of unpronounceable name, as a demonstration of their prodigious intelligence!
From various Industry spokesmen, including engineers and pilots, interviewed on Auntie Beeb’s 10:00pm news tonight, it would appear that the consensus (THAT word again!) is that the ash scare has been very over-blown. Most seem to think that the closing of the airspace to flight over the UK was an error.
cal (11:56:02) :
The discussion of CO2 balances seems to ignore the existence of feedback….
Cal, nicely put. I find it very interesting that plants love “high” levels of CO2 around 1000 ppm. At 200 pm CO2 trees starve.
My take of the situation is that mankind in burning fossil fuel is liberating much need CO2 into the environment. The fact that limestone, tar, coal, peat, and petroleum are all byproducts of the biosphere makes them part of nature and mankind is returning much needed components back into the active cycle. Sure beats starving people and animals because CO2 is limiting plant growth.
David Middleton (13:39:50) :
A comment on d13C excursions.
A decline of δ13C in the instrumental record is often cited as an “anthropogenic fingerprint” on CO2. The logic being that fossil fuels contain very little 13C and therefore CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is diluting 13C relative to 12C.
This line of reasoning is totally fallacious. δ13C declined sharply in the early Holocene. It pretty well declines whenever CO2 levels rise. Here is just one example of many…
David, the increase of d13C from the last glacial maximum to the start of the Holocene in the atmosphere was about 0.4 per mil, with CO2 increasing from about 180 to 260 ppmv. See:
http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Khl2004e.pdf
During the Holocene, CO2 levels slightly increased to about 280 ppmv, while d13C levels remained stable at -6.4 +/- 0.1 per mil. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/sponges.gif
Since about 1850, d13C levels in the atmosphere decrease from -6.4 to currently -8 per mil, while CO2 levels increased from about 280 to near 390 ppmv.
Not only is the change in d13C far larger than ever seen in the past, but completely opposite in trend (but in ratio to CO2 emissions…) compared to CO2 increases during glacial-interglacial transitions.
d13C levels in lake sediments and speleotherms are locally influenced, and can’t be used for global estimates.
Gail Combs (14:17:48) :Sure beats starving people and animals because CO2 is limiting plant growth
But it is precisely that what Al Baby wants, to limit the number of births among those smelly and working commoners and make possible the chosen ones only to survive, those brilliant minds as He himself, the supreme green kool-aid drinker.
@Scott (13:01:15) :
Ah, Atkins… We used that one for Physical Chemistry as well.
As for a reference: Sorry, I can’t find my old books anymore. It has been 15 years since I studied chemistry, and I’ve been working in ICT since. The books are stored somewhere, but I don’t recall in which box. 🙁
Searching for ‘LCAO’ (Linear Combinations of Atomic Orbitals) or ‘Hartree-Fock’ might yield something, but at first glance I can’t find an introductional piece. Maybe http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/software/download/mo/ but it seems to cut too many corners to be really useful.
Steve in SC (07:56:49) :
Walt Meir (sp?) posited on this very blog that there was a unique chemical signature to man made CO2. Willis Eshenbach agreed with him.
I have yet to see what this secret signature is.
Could anyone shed any light on this, or are they as I suspect full of the digestive waste products of cattle?
Folks assert this is true. It isn’t. The basic problem is that “fossil” C has a wide range of C12 to C13 ratios in it. That, and we have no idea how much of the CO2 that comes from things like, oh, Volcanos and natural gas seeps and natural coal fires has which C12/13 ratio / signature.
Until and unless you measure the c12/13 ratio at volcanoes all over the world (and that includes the mid ocean ridges we can’t quite sample well enough…) AND all the natural gas, oil, and coal seeps / fires AND all the soil sources… until that day, you are just making stuff up.
After that day you get to figure out what the ratios were for all the oil, coal, and natural gas we’ve already burned. Realize that the ratios are different for each source and that, by definition, we’ve burned up the source…
And for all the folks talking about plants having preferential absorption of different isotopes remember that C3 vs C4 plants have different enzyme systems and thus different ratios. So you also get to figure out the historic ratio of these two plant metabolism types. For bonus points you get to figure out how both have evolved over time AND how both work in a differential way at different concentrations of CO2 and with different atmospheric ratios of C12, C13 and even C14 just for fun…
After that, you get to figure out what ratio of c12 to c13 was in all the sequestered stuff under the ice age glaciers and how THAT was released into the air over time during the start of the interglacial…
The bottom line, IMHO, is that the c12 / c13 ratio metric is substantially unusable as we simply do not have the needed data (and most likely can never get it.)
(Link to the detailed article was in a comment above)
H.R. (07:58:12) : Your poll reminds me of a question my mother used to ask when when a passel of kids were bouncing through our small house. She’d grab of of us – either me, my siblings, or one of the neighbor’s kids – and ask, “Do you live here or do you ride a bicycle?”
Friends dad: “Do you walk to school or bring your lunch?” 😉
(My smart mouth answer: Yes. (being aware of xor vs inclusive or…)
C. Bruce Richardson Jr. (08:24:27) : Don’t you just love the word “spewed?”
It’s one of those irregular verbs:
I enlighten, you pontificate, he/she/it spews
(With apologies to “Yes Minister” 😉 from whom the original originates )
“”” Sjoerd Schreuder (14:10:02) :
“George E. Smith (13:19:13) :
http://www.chem.ucsb.edu/coursepages/05spring/1C-Perona/hybridization.pdf”
Which uses the VSEPR model. Which is a *model* that works most of the time, but is not exact. LCAO is better, but requires much more calculations.
Luckily, VSPER is good enough for most applications. That’s why students usually are taught the VSEPR model first. Only those that specialize in theoretical chemistry go on and study the better methods. “””
Sjoerd, thanks for the details; you need to know that my formal Chemistry stopped at High School, and included virtually zero Organic Chemistry; so I take a somewhat simpler stick in the sand approach to some of these problems; so I visualize the C atom as a ball with four springs sticking out in a tetrahedral configuration, that I can bend over to make double or triple bonds with some other “ball”. That naturally leads to two pairs of shared electrons which are at right angles (the pairs) in a linear CO2 molecules. And yes I know that at the atom level all those electrons are in different orbitals that complicate the configuration of molecules. A completely planar configuration would make the two degenerate bending modes of the 15 micron CO2 band seem untenable.
Here’s the animation I was looking for.
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
E.M.Smith (15:06:39) :
Thanks for the smile. They don’t write ’em like that any more. OT, but you might also enjoy: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/17/overheard.html
Jeff in Ctown (Canada) (08:39:35) : The last time this volcano erupted, it lasted for 18 months. If that hapens this time, what will happen to Europe/air industry?
Also realize that most of the time that THIS volcano goes off, about 2 years later the bigger one that shares the same magma system goes off.
We are only at the start of this puppy. In about 2012 (Gosh!) the Big Dog goes. (IFF past is prologue …)
Zeke Hausfather (08:43:58) : I’d say lets just call them equal, since…
REPLY: Let’s not neglect the fact that when people want to get home, they’ll do whatever it takes. So they shift to other modes of transportation. Many will rent cars (like happened in the USA at 9/11) and drive long distances. Others will move to trains, or perhaps a series of prop driven commuter flight short hops. Of course these produce CO2 also. Whether there’s a net loss of CO2 production overall due to lack of air transportation is certainly debatable. If the volcano continues as it has done in history it will be moot anyway. – Anthony
AND don’t forget that just sitting there is a ‘carbon maker’. You must be kept warm, fed, washed, informed, etc. And the hotel room needs to be cleaned and the dishes and sheets washed and the staff hauled to and from work.
The “first approximation” metric is simply cost. Energy and embodied energy is a large part of the cost of everything. So, air fair to Chicago: $300. Cost of food and lodging in a decent hotel once there: $200 / night. Low end $100. Rough first estimate: If you lose 2 to 3 days waiting for a flight in a hotel, you have made more CO2 than getting home. Double it for an error allowance and you are still at 6 days max. Now, spend those 6 days on the road in cars, trains, busses, etc AND nights in hotels trying to get home…
The simple fact is that it’s best to have the least cost solution and that least cost solution is a fast flight home ON TIME and ON SCHEDULE.
Both for cost and for CO2 “generation”.
bob (09:30:13) : Some plants, corn for one, prefer C12 to C13 or C14, so coal is deficient in the C13 and C14 percentages.
So there is a difference
Corn, being a grass, is C4 metabolism. Most non-grasses (but not all) are C3 metabolism. You need to know the ratio of those two plant types to get the total sequestration ratio right. Also the historic ratio to get the total “natural” release right from soils et.al.
But the bigger problem is that not all fossil fuels are created equal. Each has a different (and rather wide ranging) ratio. It’s that bit which is most often ignored…
Oh, and are you REALLY sure that the mid ocean ridge CO2 ratios are the same as those from subduction volcanos? Really really sure? AND they always have been?…
E.M.Smith (14:51:55) :
While you are right about the very different d13C ratio’s plants and fossils have, the essence is that since about 1990, the oxygen measurements are able to detect approximately how much O2 is used or released by the total biosphere.
While the O2/N2 ratio determination is quite difficult, one can safely assume that the total biosphere is producing oxygen, thus absorbing more CO2 than releasing it and preferably 12CO2. Thus it is not important at all to know all the different streams in different plants with their different d13C levels: the biosphere as a whole is a source of 13C, not a sink.
The only exception is natural methane. This hardly influences the CO2 levels (after oxydation) but may have a stronger impact on d13C levels. But if we look at the previous interglacial, the natural CH4 level was about 700 ppbv. Even with a short about 10 years lifetime, that has little impact on d13C levels of the past. The current 1800 ppbv may have more impact, but as most of that is also human induced, that adds to the human impact on d13C levels.
Similar for near all other CO2 sources: these would increase the d13C levels of the atmosphere when huge quantities would be released: (deep) oceans, volcanic vents and eruptions, calcite rock weathering,…
At last fossil fuels. While the different d13C levels of different fuels are more or less known with large margins of error, that is not important. What is important is that all fossil fuel use (and land use changes and methane releases) together decreases the d13C level of the atmosphere (and the ocean surface). This simply adds to the many observations that humans are fully responsible for most of the CO2 increase.
d13C levels and oxygen levels only make it possible to determine what the partitioning is between the two main natural CO2 sinks: oceans and biosphere, with large margins of error. But what is most important is that nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2, whatever the partitioning.