+- Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum (https://www.scivillage.com)
+-- Forum: Science (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-61.html)
+--- Forum: Meteorology & Climatology (https://www.scivillage.com/forum-72.html)
+--- Thread: Do the CO2 figures add up? What am I missing> (/thread-14555.html)
Do the CO2 figures add up? What am I missing> - confused2 - Aug 24, 2023
Picking random sources from the Internet which pretty much agree with each other..
Quote:Furthermore, multiplying Earth's atmosphere 5.137 × 10^15 tonnes * 0.0623240117 m% CO2, we will see that the total weight of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~3,208 Gt CO2.
Quote:Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy combustion and industrial processes1 grew 0.9% or 321 Mt in 2022 to a new all-time high of 36.8 Gt.
So we divide 36.8Gt per year by 3,208Gt .. that would be (roughly) a 0.1% annual increase.
If we look at the Keeling curve..
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
We see CO2 ppm increased from 400 to 420 ppm betweem 2010 and 2020 .. about 5% over 10 years or 0.5% per year. Yet the highest possible CO2 added by (declared) fossil fuel burning seems to be only 0.1% per year. So a factor 5 astray. From the Keeling curve only about 25% of the added CO2 stays in the atmosphere from year to year.. so a factor of 20 astray.
There's politicians - not expecting any sense from them.
And there's numbers (science) .. that should make sense .. can anyone help with where I'm wrong ..?
RE: Do the CO2 figures add up? What am I missing> - stryder - Aug 25, 2023
(Aug 24, 2023 11:30 PM)confused2 Wrote: Picking random sources from the Internet which pretty much agree with each other..I really wish I hadn't started trying to work out what the issue was.
Quote:Furthermore, multiplying Earth's atmosphere 5.137 × 10^15 tonnes * 0.0623240117 m% CO2, we will see that the total weight of CO2 in the atmosphere is ~3,208 Gt CO2.
Quote:Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy combustion and industrial processes1 grew 0.9% or 321 Mt in 2022 to a new all-time high of 36.8 Gt.
So we divide 36.8Gt per year by 3,208Gt .. that would be (roughly) a 0.1% annual increase.
If we look at the Keeling curve..
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
We see CO2 ppm increased from 400 to 420 ppm betweem 2010 and 2020 .. about 5% over 10 years or 0.5% per year. Yet the highest possible CO2 added by (declared) fossil fuel burning seems to be only 0.1% per year. So a factor 5 astray. From the Keeling curve only about 25% of the added CO2 stays in the atmosphere from year to year.. so a factor of 20 astray.
There's politicians - not expecting any sense from them.
And there's numbers (science) .. that should make sense .. can anyone help with where I'm wrong ..?
For simplicity sake, If CO2 is at 420 ppm now and appears to be climbing at 100 ppm every 60 years (although the curvature could climb), It would take approximate 21,000 years for the CO2 levels to reach the point where humanity is euthanized. (40,000 ppm will do that)
However it would only take 360 years for the species to be cognitively impaired (at 1,000 ppm).
Thats bad enough, but consider the slow degrading through asphixiation, it would likely increase panic attacks, increase levels of flight and fight responses and thus increase needless wars popping up more often. Further more some small species will be euthanized far before 40,000 ppm, so it also means mass species die-offs which if they happen to be part of the food cycle would likely hasten as a cascade systemmatic collapse.
Extrapolated from a few sources:
https://www.the-ies.org/analysis/outdoor-co2-pollution#Refs
In any even the actual problem with different figures is usually down to different sources being applied. You would likely need to make sure they used the same base resources to make sure the figures were the same. For instance one might use the values based upon the historic datum, where others might use a projected version of datum. (Using projected might be an assumed way to make sure a publication fits the times, even though it would likely require an addendum)
RE: Do the CO2 figures add up? What am I missing> - confused2 - Aug 25, 2023
Stryder Wrote:In any even the actual problem with different figures is usually down to different sources being applied. You would likely need to make sure they used the same base resources to make sure the figures were the same. For instance one might use the values based upon the historic datum, where others might use a projected version of datum. (Using projected might be an assumed way to make sure a publication fits the times, even though it would likely require an addendum)Personally I trust the Keeling measurements showing a 5% rise in CO2 from 2010 to 2020. The mass of the atmosphere (5.137 × 10^15 tonnes) is easily calculated from pressure at the surface (1.013 × 10^5 N/m^2) and the total surface area of the Earth .. neither of which has changed much recently. The only real (untrustworthy) variable is the amount of CO2 being added to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning and natural sources. My first guesses at the reason for the discrepancy are either my arithmetic is wrong (somebody please check!) or countries are routinely under-declaring CO2 emissions by a factor of 20.