It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# The Carbon Cycle and the Demonization of CO2, Smashing Climate Change

page: 2
11
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 03:50 PM
a reply to: Greven

you actually didn't read the source material that's why you made the response you did, so you have no idea how I came to that conclusion

posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 05:31 PM

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Greven

you actually didn't read the source material that's why you made the response you did, so you have no idea how I came to that conclusion

You can easily calculate roughly how much additional CO2 is in the atmosphere at a given time, if we have a measurement for the concentration.

We have good estimates for how much CO2 we emit, and a record of CO2 concentration spanning back to the 1950s.

The source material is wrong, as my response showed you quite clearly; it says:

Hopefully the reader is paying attention to the extent that they will see that this +3 gigatons is about half the amount initially introduced into the atmosphere due to fossil fuel combustion, given as 5.5 gigatons in this chart and 6 gigatons in the Raven & Berg chart

This is the number you quoted when you wrote:

originally posted by: toysforadults
and we add, get this, 3 gigatons!!! yup 3 gigatons of a total 40,250 gigatons

You are wrong, too.

Further, the source claims:

The total amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere is given as 750 gigatons

This is obviously wrong, given the equation I've shown you. It's underestimating the amount of CO2 by several thousand gigatonnes.

Let me explain it simply: the source article doesn't understand the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide; rather, it conflates the two. Recall the equation in my previous post:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c

This is the molar mass of carbon dioxide, which is made up of carbon and two oxygen. Carbon is the lighter portion, with a molar mass of about 12.0107 g/mole. Each Oxygen atom has a molar mass of about 15.9999 g/mole. Hence, the combined molar mass is about 44.0095 g/mole.

This means that the mass of carbon is approximately 27.3% the mass of carbon dioxide. If you divide 750 gigatonnes of carbon by 27.3%, you come up with 2747 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide. This is much closer, but also very dated. Recall the formula:

Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2017 annual mean: 404.92ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 mass, 2017 annual mean (a * (c / b) * d): 3,166.6911 Gt

Let's work backwards:
2747 = a * (c / b) * d
2747 / 5148000 / 44.0095 * 28.97 = d
d = 351.255 ppm

So, just as a matter of record, that would have been around 1988. Given that the book where this illustration came from was published in 2004, that's kind of sad.

However, we can get to the point - 3166.6911 of carbon dioxide * 27.3% is 864.5067 gigatonnes of carbon. This is probably what the text about the chart originally said: carbon, not carbon dioxide. Carbon is, obviously, a different beast than carbon dioxide.

Such an oversight is at best irresponsible. It's much more likely to be intentional - that the author wanted to mislead people such as yourself.

When talking generally about carbon, it's including living plants and animals, for example.

There is a whole lot of carbon on Earth, that is true; there is far less carbon dioxide.
edit on 18Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:12:03 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago6 by Greven because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 07:29 PM

If you divide 750 gigatonnes of carbon by 27.3%, you come up with 2747 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide

why don't you just post a link that's to some sort of valid source that tells us the current levels of carbon in the atmosphere measured in gigatons

carbon tracker

rolling stoned

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)

The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons

This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios. The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.

I don't think Randal is trying to mislead people I think the climate change pushers are the ones trying to mislead people

edit on 21-6-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 07:32 PM
a reply to: Greven

also I don't think you know what carbon is

what is carbon

Carbon is a chemical element, like hydrogen, oxygen, lead or any of the others in the periodic table.

Carbon is a very abundant element. It exists in pure or nearly pure forms – such as diamonds and graphite – but can also combine with other elements to form molecules. These carbon-based molecules are the basic building blocks of humans, animals, plants, trees and soils. Some greenhouse gases, such as CO2 and methane, also consist of carbon-based molecules, as do fossil fuels, which are largely made up of hydrocarbons (molecules consisting of hydrogen and carbon).

In the context of climate change, "carbon" is commonly used as a shorthand for carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas released by humans. Technically, however, this isn't accurate. Carbon only becomes carbon dioxide when each atom of carbon joins with two atoms of oxygen (hence the chemical formula of carbon dioxide, CO2).

This shorthand can sometimes cause confusion, because although "a tonne of carbon" will often be used to mean "a tonne of CO2", in a scientific context the same phrase could mean "CO2 containing a tonne of carbon" (which is a much smaller amount, as oxygen accounts for most of the weight of each CO2 molecule).

The term carbon also crops up in the phrase carbon footprint, which describes the total amount of greenhouse gases released as the result of a given activity. In this context, "a tonne of carbon" may mean something else still: "a mix of greenhouse gases with a combined warming impact equivalent to that of a tonne of CO2".

......... not sure who's trying to mislead people here

posted on Jun, 21 2018 @ 10:48 PM
a reply to: Greven

come on are you going to send me some NASA links or something similar that actually put up the numbers you did above?

like we have several thousand gigatons of C02 in the atmosphere and of course carbon isn't c02 it's just a part of C02

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:07 AM

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Greven

come on are you going to send me some NASA links or something similar that actually put up the numbers you did above?

like we have several thousand gigatons of C02 in the atmosphere and of course carbon isn't c02 it's just a part of C02

My, you're impatient for a response. I've been busy, sorry. Again, it's CO2, not C02. I don't quite understand why you or others do that.

In the Rolling Stone article you cite, that's an estimate for how much more CO2 we can emit without serious negative consequences. It was maybe 15 years of emissions... in 2012. Fortunately, not all of our emissions are hanging around in the atmosphere:
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2012 was 3,069.1691 Gt.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2017 was 3,179.2822 Gt.
Hmm... that's +110 Gt in 5 years? That leaves us with 455 Gt (from 565 Gt), and that'll last what... maybe 25 years?
I don't see how this helps your case very much.

Your second source backs my claim that the atmosphere is composed of multiple thousand gigatonnes of carbon dioxide... so...?

Please explain how I don't know what carbon is. I'm all ears.

The atmosphere is commonly estimated to weigh about 5,148,000 billion tonnes, aka gigatonnes. There are numerous sources, but you seem to want NASA, so look at the planetary fact sheet - the relevant metrics are bolded:

Terrestrial Atmosphere

Surface pressure: 1014 mb
Surface density: 1.217 kg/m^3
Scale height: 8.5 km
Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 10^18 kg
Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 10^21 kg
Average temperature: 288 K (15 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 283 K to 293 K (10 to 20 C)
Wind speeds: 0 to 100 m/s
Mean molecular weight: 28.97
Atmospheric composition (by volume, dry air):
Major : 78.08% Nitrogen (N2), 20.95% Oxygen (O2),
Minor (ppm): Argon (Ar) - 9340; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 400
Neon (Ne) - 18.18; Helium (He) - 5.24; CH4 - 1.7
Krypton (Kr) - 1.14; Hydrogen (H2) - 0.55
Numbers do not add up to exactly 100% due to roundoff and uncertainty
Water is highly variable, typically makes up about 1%

These two facts are two parts of the equation above:

Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2017 annual mean: 404.92ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 mass, 2017 annual mean (a * (c / b) * d): 3,166.6911 Gt

That okay?

Next, there is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, from NOAA - relevant things bolded:

# CO2 expressed as a mole fraction in dry air, micromol/mol, abbreviated as ppm
#
# year mean unc
1959 315.97 0.12
1960 316.91 0.12
1961 317.64 0.12
1962 318.45 0.12
1963 318.99 0.12
1964 319.62 0.12
1965 320.04 0.12
1966 321.38 0.12
1967 322.16 0.12
1968 323.04 0.12
1969 324.62 0.12
1970 325.68 0.12
1971 326.32 0.12
1972 327.45 0.12
1973 329.68 0.12
1974 330.18 0.12
1975 331.11 0.12
1976 332.04 0.12
1977 333.83 0.12
1978 335.40 0.12
1979 336.84 0.12
1980 338.75 0.12
1981 340.11 0.12
1982 341.45 0.12
1983 343.05 0.12
1984 344.65 0.12
1985 346.12 0.12
1986 347.42 0.12
1987 349.19 0.12
1988 351.57 0.12
1989 353.12 0.12
1990 354.39 0.12
1991 355.61 0.12
1992 356.45 0.12
1993 357.10 0.12
1994 358.83 0.12
1995 360.82 0.12
1996 362.61 0.12
1997 363.73 0.12
1998 366.70 0.12
1999 368.38 0.12
2000 369.55 0.12
2001 371.14 0.12
2002 373.28 0.12
2003 375.80 0.12
2004 377.52 0.12
2005 379.80 0.12
2006 381.90 0.12
2007 383.79 0.12
2008 385.60 0.12
2009 387.43 0.12
2010 389.90 0.12
2011 391.65 0.12
2012 393.85 0.12
2013 396.52 0.12
2014 398.65 0.12
2015 400.83 0.12
2016 404.21 0.12
2017 406.53 0.12

Oh dear, this is a slight discrepancy... in being even higher than when I last looked. I might have gotten the lower number above from a different source rather than this, I don't recall exactly. Oh well.

This makes up another piece of the equation:

Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2017 annual mean: 406.53ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 mass, 2017 annual mean (a * (c / b) * d): 3,179.2822 Gt

Here's a PDF that describes the molar mass of CO2...

1 mol CO2 / 44g )

Just flip the equation to get the same... it's not quite as precise as what I have above, and honestly you can look this up in the periodic table.

Consequently, we have all the bits but the equation itself:

Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2017 annual mean: 406.53ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 mass, 2017 annual mean (a * (c / b) * d): 3,179.2822 Gt

Well, what we're doing there is taking the total mass of the atmosphere multiplied by CO2 ppm (406.53ppm = 0.00040653) and the molar mass of CO2 adjusted for the mean molar mass of the atmosphere. This yields the CO2 gigatonne equivalent.

NASA, of course, has a simpler explanation (PDF):

Problem 3 - If a concentration of 127 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere equals
a total of 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide (1,000 billion tons), about what was the total
mass of carbon dioxide gas in 2005? Answer: (379/127) x 1,000 gigatons = 2,984
gigatons, or to 3 significant figures, 2,980 gigatons.

They're using a somewhat rougher equation where Atmospheric CO2 mass of 1000 Gt = Atmospheric CO2 ppm of 127ppm.

If you plug 127 ppm into the equation above, you would see 993.2080 Gt as the result.

There we are, all 5 items in the equation accounted for:

Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a
Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c
Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2017 annual mean: 406.53ppm = d
Atmospheric CO2 mass, 2017 annual mean (a * (c / b) * d): 3,179.2822 Gt

Are you now satisfied that you were lied to?

edit on 0Fri, 22 Jun 2018 00:12:20 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago6 by Greven because: alas, i can't strikethrough text

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 12:33 AM
a reply to: Greven

There we are, all 5 items in the equation accounted for: Earth's atmosphere: 5,148,000 gigatonnes (Gt) = a Mean molar mass of the atmosphere: 28.97g/mole = b Carbon Dioxide (CO2) molar mass: 44.0095 g/mole = c Atmospheric CO2 ppm, 2017 annual mean: 406.53ppm = d Atmospheric CO2 mass, 2017 annual mean (a * (c / b) * d): 3,179.2822 Gt

Our old friend Wikipedia concurs:
Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.

It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) [14][15][16][17][18] which corresponds to approximately 3200 gigatons of CO2, containing approximately 870 gigatons of carbon.

-dex

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 03:46 AM
I normally don't mind being ignored, but is there anybody who has anything to say about the timeframe in which human activity is influencing the CO2 cycle?

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:15 PM
a reply to: DexterRiley

containing approximately 870 gigatons of carbon

^^^^^^^^^ pretty close the number I was referencing ehhh?? ehhh???

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: Greven

look do us all a favor post a link to the amount of c02 in the atmosphere in gigatons and stop with the technical breakdown trying to prove how smart you are

show us the link with just the measurement in gigatons

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 06:54 PM

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Greven

look do us all a favor post a link to the amount of c02 in the atmosphere in gigatons and stop with the technical breakdown trying to prove how smart you are

show us the link with just the measurement in gigatons

I've been quite civil with you. There is no 'prove how smart you are' going on.

You yourself provided a source with multiple thousand gigatonnes in the atmosphere.
DexterRiley provided a source with multiple thousand gigatonnes in the atmosphere.
I provided the calculations using figures from NASA or similar that you requested.

You are unable to admit that you were deceived; your entire OP is built on wrongly conflating Carbon with Carbon Dioxide. This has been proven repeatedly. You are willfully disregarding the truth at this juncture.

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 06:57 PM
a reply to: Greven

Where's the source??

Who's being misleading?

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 07:02 PM

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: Greven

Where's the source??

Who's being misleading?

You have, just as your source has.

The commonly used metric is in ppm not in Gt.

edit on 20Fri, 22 Jun 2018 20:23:40 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago6 by Greven because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 07:03 PM
a reply to: Greven

Why can't you just easily post a link to the amount of c02 currently in the atmosphere measured by gigatons?

It's easy, are you triggered?

posted on Jun, 22 2018 @ 07:10 PM
a reply to: toysforadults
Why should I? I've provided exactly how you can calculate it, with data to back it up.

I would recommend looking in a mirror.

Prove me wrong if you can. You don't actually care. You want to drag out the discussion looking for some fleeting way to escape the reality that you were wrong.
edit on 19Fri, 22 Jun 2018 19:27:10 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago6 by Greven because: (no reason given)

top topics

11