User:Dave the plodder

CO2 Emissions and effect on Global Warming - analysis

I wanted to try and find out for myself how significant CO2 emissions are in the GW scenario. To this effect I have carried out some simple calculations using available parameters on the internet.

To my surprise they showed that at today’s (actually 2004) rate emissions and with other present day factors, it will take 166 years for the global temperature (due to CO2 emissions alone) to rise by 2 degrees C.

I have done a few simple calculations, which you can all follow: surface area of a sphere = 4 π R and the radius of the earth is about 3800 miles surface of earth = 4 π(3800 x 5280 x 12)²  ins² total weight of air =  4 π(3800 x 5280 x 12)² x 14.7/2280 tons [14.7 psi at earth surface] = 469.7.0 x 1013 tons Now CO2 is 0.046% of air by weight Therefore total CO2 (man made plus natural)

= 469.7 x 1013 x 0.00046 tons

= 2.160 x 1012 tons ........ (1) Now man made emissions totalled 27.043  109   tons per annum (Kyoto emissions 2002) ........ (2)

SEE:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh3co2.xls Therefore man-made emissions in 2004 were (2) / (1) x 100%  = 1.252% of total amount of atmospheric CO2 And marine chemists estimate approximately 25 - 40 % of the anthropogenic emissions into the atmosphere are absorbed by the ocean. Any quarrels with this??

The CO2 issue

The calculations above show that annual man-made CO2 emissions (2004) are about 1.25% of total CO2 present in the atmosphere. I would like to crave your indulgence to develop my argument a little further:

‘About half of the anthropogenic carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere. (A quarter is absorbed in the oceans and temperate forests, and another quarter is absorbed by an unknown terrestrial sink. Recent research results give good reasons to assume that tropical rain forests form the major part of this unknown sink.)’ – University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Ecology

Therefore there is a net annual increase in CO2 levels from man-made causes of about 0.6% (1.25/2) relative to the total atmospheric CO2 present.

At present emission levels it would therefore take about 166 years to double atmospheric CO2, representing a 2 deg C (Nobel Prize-winning Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius) increase in global temperature – all other factors remaining constant – which of course they don’t, but we are looking at CO2 only here.

Tropical rain forests have decreased from 15% of land surface in 1950 to about 7% today http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

Since it seems that tropical rain forests absorb 1/4 of man-made CO2 (see above) today when they occupy just 7% of land surface, then we can conclude that man made CO2 levels will increase as more rain forest is cleared, assuming no change in emissions for this discussion. Conversely we can also conclude that prior to some date between 1950 and the present time, tropical rain forests were able to handle all the excess man made CO2. Perhaps this partly accounts for the slight global increase in temperature since the 1970s, although it is more likely that the increase is due to the sun’s increasing radiation – see fig.1

NB: Global temperature has increased overall by just 0.6 degrees C since 1850.

Observation: Efforts to reduce man made emissions through use of nuclear power may be thwarted if a report (7th April 07) about the increase in price of uranium is to be taken seriously. The report stated that the demand for uranium is 2.5 times the supply, which implies shortages. The report also stated that there are 150 nuclear power stations in the planning stage in the world, most in Asia!

These calculations are a snapshot of the present state of CO2 in the atmosphere and the current additions to it. Critics counter that we must take into account all the man made contributions since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Why? The proportion of CO2 contributed by man (and woman if you like) and still unabsorbed is reckoned to be but 3% of the total CO2 present and the resulting global rise in temperature since 1850 is said to be just 0.6 deg C, which indicates (even if we ignore the fact of increasing output from the sun – see figure.1 below) that the biosphere has been able to cope very well with any CO2 output from the processes of just living.

Figure.1 (removed)

‘Our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below – fig.2) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979’ - http://www.climateprediction.net/index.php

Figure 2 (removed)

Conclusions:

1. We do not need to panic over CO2 emissions, since it would take 166 years to raise global temperatures by just 2 deg C from that cause and therefore CO2 trading, besides being inequitable and divisive, is unnecessary from a scientific point of view. We have ample time to fully investigate the subject and take necessary counter measures.

Although this is but a snapshot of the CO2 issue, there are at least three other factors to consider:

- CO2 emissions are still increasing owing to the building of coal-fired power stations (currently at the rate of one every two weeks).

- rainforests are continuing to be cleared (see conclusion below)

- on the positive side increasing GW will reduce the need for heating in the Northern Hemisphere and offset the above worsing effects.

So in practise, because of the three factors described it is likely that 166 years will not elapse before a 2 deg C global temperature increase from CO2 occurs. Perhaps in fact we are talking about 100 years and of course given other factors - sun output and other greenhouse gases, it will be even less than this. But concentrating on CO2 emissions at the expense of these other factors is perhaps a bit like burying the collective head in the sand - on present course the economy of the world could be ruined to the extent that we cannot afford the measures needed to adjust to GW itself.

I have in mind the research and development of fusion power and developping the means for adapting to higher temperatures.

Further, literature on the subject considers that a degree of GW may be benificial to us in that it will enhance crop production, especially in the Northern Hemisphere.

This is not to say that it might turn out that there are problems from other green house gasses that have received less attention from the scientific community than they ought to have.

The contribution from the sun’s output should also received further attention - perhaps the future output might infact decrease (it has before) - deep space probes are continually increasing our knowledge.

In effect the above shows that we do have ample time to refine our thoughts about GW and the measures to be taken without introducing potentially harmful CO2 trading which would only be a small part of the answer in any case. CO2 trading is inequitable and of very limited effect.

2. It is a crying shame that man has destroyed rain forests so quickly in recent decades since they have in the past absorbed the CO2 output from human activities. There are other compelling reasons why the process should be arrested (it cannot be reversed) – see http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

Nations should organise to arrest the process by paying those countries where forests remain, to keep them that way.