Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 emission from fossil fuels.



Page 1 of 212>
CO2 emission from fossil fuels.02-09-2019 18:05
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
5ppmv per year.

You arrive at this figure from yearly production of coal, oil, and natural gas. This turns out to be feasible because the weight of the atmosphere is easily calculated as atmospheric pressure at sea-level times surface area of the earth.

But observed yearly increase is 2ppmv.
Edited on 02-09-2019 18:12
02-09-2019 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
olyz wrote:
5ppmv per year.

You arrive at this figure from yearly production of coal, oil, and natural gas. This turns out to be feasible because the weight of the atmosphere is easily calculated as atmospheric pressure at sea-level times surface area of the earth.

But observed yearly increase is 2ppmv.


Which pressure are you using?

KSEA is currently reporting 30.09 in
KLAS is currently reporting 29.92 in
KORL is currently reporting 29.82 in
KMIA is currently reporting 29.62 in
MYGF was last reporting 29.32 in

Who is observed this increase? When did they observe it? How are they measuring it? What instrumentation is being used? How was it calibrated?

BTW, neither coal, oil, nor natural gas are fossils.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 02-09-2019 20:30
02-09-2019 20:31
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
olyz wrote:
5ppmv per year.

You arrive at this figure from yearly production of coal, oil, and natural gas. This turns out to be feasible because the weight of the atmosphere is easily calculated as atmospheric pressure at sea-level times surface area of the earth.

But observed yearly increase is 2ppmv.


Doesn't that atmospheric pressure change all the time? The pressure in the eye of Hurricane Dorian drop quite a bit, as the wind speed increased... Atmospheric pressure is used to predict storms forming. Maybe that's why the CO2 readings jump around some much at Mauna Loa, and I just thought the volcano just had 'bad' days...

Spent some time looking into another form of CO2 production, fermentation. I haven't really found the magic numbers, but looks like a considerable volume. Of course, a government would have to be insane to mess with people's beer, wine, and spirits. To easy for folks to make their own, and will. Apparently, 2,000 ppm is safe to work in, for extend periods. 5,000, with limited time, no special equipment, non toxic, or cumulative effects. Wonder why we are so much more tolerant to CO2, than the planet. Plants love high levels of CO2, grow real good at 2,000 ppm...
02-09-2019 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe that's why the CO2 readings jump around some much at Mauna Loa, and I just thought the volcano just had 'bad' days...
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:


They actually don't. They should have, but they didn't.

It is obvious that the Mauna Loa data is being cooked. It is useless.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 22:01
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Mean atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, which is the weight of the column of air above one square inch of the earth's surface.

Yearly coal, oil and natural gas production are on the internet (if they are right), and it is assumed their carbon is converted to CO2.

Coal converts directly to tons of carbon. So does oil after conversion from barrels to tons.
Natural gas requires a little elementary chemistry to get weight of carbon per m^3, and then convert that to tons.

It is an order of magnitude check using "hard" numbers for how much CO2 combustion of fossil fuel accounts for.

What effect this has, if any, on "Global Warming" is anther matter.

Statements such as x, y or z create CO2 are meaningless without hard numbers, as are statements about quantities of CO2 or carbon put into the atmosphere. There is a lot of atmosphere- it's all relative.

The natural question is, where did the excess 3ppmv go to, in hard numbers, ie, quantitatively, not qualitatively, and how did you get it?. Without that it's blah blah.
02-09-2019 23:45
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
olyz wrote:
Mean atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, which is the weight of the column of air above one square inch of the earth's surface.


So you're calculating the mass of the atmosphere on your own?, based on atmospheric pressure? Is there any reason to doubt the calculations that have already been done or is that one?
03-09-2019 03:04
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
tmiddles wrote:
olyz wrote:
Mean atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, which is the weight of the column of air above one square inch of the earth's surface.


So you're calculating the mass of the atmosphere on your own?, based on atmospheric pressure? Is there any reason to doubt the calculations that have already been done or is that one?


It's been done, it's online, I got the same answer. It really is a basic, elementary calculation- unless you don't know the physical meaning of atmospheric pressure.

You know the weight of the atmosphere, and published figures for recent coal, air, and natural gas production. The ppmv of CO2 follows.

You have a box of sand with a base of 100ln^2. The pressure at the base of the box is 75psi. Can you figure out how many pounds of sand are in the box? Hint: F=pA.
03-09-2019 03:04
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
tmiddles wrote:
olyz wrote:
Mean atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, which is the weight of the column of air above one square inch of the earth's surface.


So you're calculating the mass of the atmosphere on your own?, based on atmospheric pressure? Is there any reason to doubt the calculations that have already been done or is that one?


It's been done, it's online, I got the same answer. It really is a basic, elementary calculation- unless you don't know the physical meaning of atmospheric pressure.

You know the weight of the atmosphere, and published figures for recent coal, air, and natural gas production. The ppmv of CO2 follows.

You have a box of sand with a base of 100ln^2. The pressure at the base of the box is 75psi. Can you figure out how many pounds of sand are in the box? Hint: F=pA.
03-09-2019 06:23
James___
★★★★☆
(1716)
olyz wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
olyz wrote:
Mean atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, which is the weight of the column of air above one square inch of the earth's surface.


So you're calculating the mass of the atmosphere on your own?, based on atmospheric pressure? Is there any reason to doubt the calculations that have already been done or is that one?


It's been done, it's online, I got the same answer. It really is a basic, elementary calculation- unless you don't know the physical meaning of atmospheric pressure.

You know the weight of the atmosphere, and published figures for recent coal, air, and natural gas production. The ppmv of CO2 follows.

You have a box of sand with a base of 100ln^2. The pressure at the base of the box is 75psi. Can you figure out how many pounds of sand are in the box? Hint: F=pA.



Just being an **** here.
Atmospheric pressure is 1.03 kgf/cm^4 while it should be 0.98 kgf/cm^3.
The effects of gravity. What atmospheric pressure is based on. It's sad that most people are not aware of how science came to be.
You'll need to ignore me, I'm simply bored.
03-09-2019 14:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
olyz wrote:You have a box of sand with a base of 100ln^2. The pressure at the base of the box is 75psi. Can you figure out how many pounds of sand are in the box? Hint: F=pA.


Very cool. So for every 1 square inch of sand it's 75lbs so it's 7500lbs of sand?

James___ wrote:
Atmospheric pressure is 1.03 kgf/cm^4 while it should be 0.98 kgf/cm^3


What do yo mean it should be?
03-09-2019 15:31
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
tmiddles wrote:
olyz wrote:You have a box of sand with a base of 100ln^2. The pressure at the base of the box is 75psi. Can you figure out how many pounds of sand are in the box? Hint: F=pA.


Very cool. So for every 1 square inch of sand it's 75lbs so it's 7500lbs of sand?*

James___ wrote:
Atmospheric pressure is 1.03 kgf/cm^4 while it should be 0.98 kgf/cm^3


What do yo mean it should be?


*Correct.

Atmospheric pressure (google it) is 1kgf/cm^2 (14.7lb/in^2) with sufficient accuracy if you prefer to calculate weight of atmosphere in kgf using surface area of earth in cm^2.
03-09-2019 20:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
olyz wrote:
Mean atmospheric pressure at sea level is 14.7 psi, which is the weight of the column of air above one square inch of the earth's surface.

So you are going to use the assumed values of 29.92 in and 60 deg F, eh?
olyz wrote:
Yearly coal, oil and natural gas production are on the internet (if they are right), and it is assumed their carbon is converted to CO2.

Why would that be assumed? Coal, oil, and natural gas are used for other purposes besides burning it.
olyz wrote:
Coal converts directly to tons of carbon.

Not quite. There are impurities in coal. They don't burn. Also, you are forgetting the oxygen.
olyz wrote:
So does oil after conversion from barrels to tons.

No. You are forgetting the hydrogen. You are also forgetting the oxygen in the atmosphere again. Oil also has impurities that don't burn, or burn to produce different compounds.
olyz wrote:
Natural gas requires a little elementary chemistry to get weight of carbon per m^3, and then convert that to tons.

No, you are forgetting both the hydrogen and oxygen again.
olyz wrote:
It is an order of magnitude check using "hard" numbers for how much CO2 combustion of fossil fuel accounts for.

We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn.
olyz wrote:
What effect this has, if any, on "Global Warming" is anther matter.

Zero. CO2 has absolutely no effect on the temperature of Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm Earth.
olyz wrote:
Statements such as x, y or z create CO2 are meaningless without hard numbers, as are statements about quantities of CO2 or carbon put into the atmosphere. There is a lot of atmosphere- it's all relative.

Okay. It's all relative. You are conveniently forgetting about a lot, though.
olyz wrote:
The natural question is, where did the excess 3ppmv go to,in hard numbers, ie, quantitatively, not qualitatively, and how did you get it?. Without that it's blah blah.

Just accepting this randU value as simply something greater than zero, the answer is Flower Power.

Ocean plankton, grass, flowers, shrubs, trees, underground activity, etc. ALL destroy CO2.

You have completely failed to notice this.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 20:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
olyz wrote: Coal converts directly to tons of carbon.

Nope. Only the carbon in the coal burns, ergo only the carbon in the coal converts to carbon.

The impurities, on the other hand, don't even burn. Sometimes those impurities are fossils. Fossils don't burn. They don't convert to carbon.

olyz wrote: So does oil after conversion from barrels to tons.

Are you forgetting your chemistry? Burning hydrocarbons involves hydrogen, carbon and oxygen ... and some impurities.



... impurities can add some CO into the mix along with traces of unburned hydrocarbons.




.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2019 21:47
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
It's an order of magnitude check: if you burned the yearly production of coal oil and natural gas, how much CO2 would you put into the air. Coal and oil are approximately 90% carbon. Natural gas is essentially methane, CH4, and you have to find equivalent carbon content of yearly production.

Variation in atmospheric pressure is meaningless in this calculation.

Of course you are not burning all the fossil fuel, it's just a reference figure to get a feel for how much CO2 would increase if you did. It's a hard number. There is no hocus pocus or hand waving involved. If I put one pound of salt in ten pounds of water I have a concentration of 10% salt by weight or .1 part by weight. On a hot day my measuring pail may contain slightly less water so the concentration is .100001 part by weight: so what?

If someone estimates CO2 consumption by worlds forests would you complain if they were off by a few trees?

Of course CO2 is consumed by various mechanisms, but if you don't have reasonable numerical approximations it's meaningless. It's like saying trees consume CO2 but cows farting create CO2 so they balance each other out.

In summary, I simply wanted to know how much CO2. yearly production of coal, oil, and natural gas put into atmosphere if all used as fuel. Whether it's 4.89756 or 5.13856ppmv is meaningless.

And I did it because I thought it was a basic question that interested me and I couldn't find the answer googling. If I had come up with .001ppmv when the reported value is 2ppmv that would have been shattering news (what I was hoping for). But 5ppmv when the reported value is 2ppmv is a lot to account for.

I am not pro global warming: the one calculation I could find didn't even clearly define their thermodynamic system.

EDIT:
As for the chemistry, since it was brought up, 22.4 liters of methane, CH4, contain 12 gms of carbon. That's all you need to know, plus conversion factors, to convert cubic meters of methane to tons of carbon.

And 12gms carbon gives 44gms CO2.
Edited on 03-09-2019 22:07
03-09-2019 23:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
olyz wrote:
It's an order of magnitude check:

Yeah? Where is the exponent?
olyz wrote:
if you burned the yearly production of coal oil and natural gas, how much CO2 would you put into the air.

Since the yearly production of coal, oil, and natural gas in the world is unknown, the amount of CO2 is unknown.
olyz wrote:
Coal and oil are approximately 90% carbon.

WRONG.
Coal is primarily carbon. That is 100% carbon, minus any impurities in it. Oil is hydrocarbons of many different lengths. Gasoline tends to use heptanes and octanes (length 7 and 8, respectively). One mole of carbon in heptane is 12*7 or 84g. The hydrogen in that same amount is 2*7+2 or 16g. That means the carbon is only 84 percent of the material by weight.

When burned, heptane combines with oxygen according to the formula C7H16 + 15O2 -> 7CO2 + 8H2O + energy. In other words, 308g of CO2 and 144g of water. One mole of 15O2 is 480g.

So, 580g of material burns to produce 580g, with 480g of that coming out of the air to support the burn.

And that's just gasoline.

Not all oil is burned. A fair amount of it becomes asphalt for roads, gaskets, and insulation, some is made into plastics and dyes. Some is made into insecticide. Some is eaten by bacteria. These are no small amounts either. We make a LOT of plastics and dyes, for example. Asphalt is rarely burned (there are occasions, but its rare).
olyz wrote:
Natural gas is essentially methane, CH4, and you have to find equivalent carbon content of yearly production.

You don't know the yearly production of coal, oil, or methane worldwide.Claiming that you is just making up numbers.
olyz wrote:
Variation in atmospheric pressure is meaningless in this calculation.

No, it's quite important. Roughly half the mass of the atmosphere is at and below 18,000ft (there is no definite top of the atmosphere). This is where pressure changes the most due to weather. Example, at 1013 mb and 20 deg C (the standard temperature and pressure used for 14.7aspsi), a pressure reading of 993mb, such as where Dorian's eye is right now (last measured), is a pressure of only 14.4aspsi at 20 deg C. Currently, KSEA is reporting 1017mb of pressure, resulting in 14.75aspsi of pressure at 20 deg C.
olyz wrote:
Of course you are not burning all the fossil fuel, it's just a reference figure to get a feel for how much CO2 would increase if you did. It's a hard number.

So it's a number you made up.
olyz wrote:
There is no hocus pocus or hand waving involved.

There sure is. It's a number you made up.
olyz wrote:
If I put one pound of salt in ten pounds of water I have a concentration of 10% salt by weight or .1 part by weight.

WRONG.
1 mole of water weighs in at 18g. One mole of salt weighs in at 52g. Putting in only 1.8g of salt in the water will result in a concentration of 3.4% by weight.
olyz wrote:
If someone estimates CO2 consumption by worlds forests would you complain if they were off by a few trees?

You are off by a hell of a lot more than a few trees!
olyz wrote:
Of course CO2 is consumed by various mechanisms, but if you don't have reasonable numerical approximations it's meaningless.

So, photosynthesis means nothing to you, eh? What do you eat?
olyz wrote:
It's like saying trees consume CO2

They do. So does grass, shrubs, flowers, plankton, shellfish, people every time they drink a soda or a beer, certain industries, etc.
olyz wrote:
but cows farting create CO2 so they balance each other out.

Farts are not CO2. They are methane (CH4)...even from a cow.
olyz wrote:
In summary, I simply wanted to know how much CO2. yearly production of coal, oil, and natural gas put into atmosphere if all used as fuel.

Since we don't know how much is produced, we only know how much is reported to some government somewhere, and since production does not equal how much is burned, there really is no answer to this.
olyz wrote:
Whether it's 4.89756 or 5.13856ppmv is meaningless.

I agree. Both numbers are quite meaningless.
olyz wrote:
And I did it because I thought it was a basic question that interested me and I couldn't find the answer googling.

Because it's not a basic question. It's not even an answerable question.
olyz wrote:
If I had come up with .001ppmv when the reported value is 2ppmv that would have been shattering news (what I was hoping for). But 5ppmv when the reported value is 2ppmv is a lot to account for.

Not really. Perhaps you should understand what one millionth actually means.
olyz wrote:
I am not pro global warming: the one calculation I could find didn't even clearly define their thermodynamic system.

The Church of Global Warming denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. They don't have a thermodynamic system. Only scripture.
olyz wrote:
EDIT:
As for the chemistry, since it was brought up, 22.4 liters of methane, CH4, contain 12 gms of carbon.

Only at standard temperature and pressure. It also contains 4g of hydrogen.
olyz wrote:
That's all you need to know,

For what?
olyz wrote:
plus conversion factors,

What conversion factors?
olyz wrote:
to convert cubic meters of methane to tons of carbon.

Only by removing the hydrogen. Then you have essentially coal.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 23:49
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Sorry you missed the point and didn't understand the simple calculation.
The point being that 2ppmv because of burning fossil fuel was not unreasonable and if anything, low.

Try googling yearly production of coal, oil, and natural gas.

I said your argument was like cows farting CO2 balancing tree CO2 consumption to make an Obvious point.
04-09-2019 00:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
olyz wrote:
Sorry you missed the point and didn't understand the simple calculation.

What calculation? You didn't make any! What point are you trying to make? Try to be as concise as possible.
olyz wrote:
The point being that 2ppmv because of burning fossil fuel was not unreasonable and if anything, low.

Okay. You have no point. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Making up random numbers for the amount of coal, oil, or natural gas burned is no point either.
olyz wrote:
Try googling yearly production of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Google doesn't know either. Google isn't God.
olyz wrote:
I said your argument was like cows farting CO2 balancing tree CO2 consumption to make an Obvious point.

Cows don't fart CO2. They fart CH4 and a bit of SO2, just like you do.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-09-2019 00:17
04-09-2019 01:49
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
See you are not giving up on the cow analogy- I assume it's because you don't like the point and not because of a lack of, well, perception.

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natural-gas/world-natural-gas-production-statistics.html

Above gives 2019 world production of natural gas as 4000bcm. I can assure you they don't mean at the temperature and pressure 100km above the Empire State Building on May 5 2019. STP maybe?
04-09-2019 01:49
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
See you are not giving up on the cow analogy- I assume it's because you don't like the point and not because of a lack of, well, perception.

https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natural-gas/world-natural-gas-production-statistics.html

Above gives 2019 world production of natural gas as 4000bcm. I can assure you they don't mean at the temperature and pressure 100km above the Empire State Building on May 5 2019. STP maybe?
04-09-2019 02:00
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Couple of weeks ago, I had a thought about CO2 production, and saw there is another source, that probably isn't to far off from that produce by burning stuff, fermentation. The main difference though, is that it's a natural process, and pretty much no way to measure, monitor, but most importantly tax or control. It's most familiar in the production of alcohol, beer, wine, spirits, fuel, and we produce a lot each year. We also use fermentation a lot in the food industry, like bread and cheese, for the pizza that goes so well with the beer. It happen quit a bit in nature, since is basically part of the decomposition process, when things rot, and there is a lot of stuff rotting in the ground.

For some reason, only man-made CO2, from 'fossil fuels', are the only cause of 'climate change', because it's unnatural for fossil fuels to get pulled out the ground, and burned. Fermentation is a natural process, true enough, but we industrialized it, far beyond the natural level. It's a little ironic that some of the 'tree-buggerer' practices, to save the planet, are actual contributing to some of the same things they demonize. In Florida, they add alcohol to gasoline, 10% by volume. I burn about 15 gallons/week. Composting, to reduce/eliminate chemical fertilizers, is used quite a bit, basically fermenting to break down the organic matter, produces CO2, among other 'greenhouse' gasses. We plow farm fields, to help get the remains started, a speed of the rot process as well. But, of course none of any of this really matters, that's why it's call 'renewable'. We tend to use more of the plant, than nature does though, and release a hell of a lot more CO2, than would have been extracted naturally. A lot of that carbon would have gone into the ground, not into the air. We need to convert some of that carbon in the ground, into CO2, to feed the plants, which feed everything living...
04-09-2019 02:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
olyz wrote:
See you are not giving up on the cow analogy- I assume it's because you don't like the point and not because of a lack of, well, perception.

No, it's because YOU keep using it.
olyz wrote:
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/natural-gas/world-natural-gas-production-statistics.html

They don't know the world natural gas production. They can only estimate it. They are guessing, just like you are.
olyz wrote:
Above gives 2019 world production of natural gas as 4000bcm.

They don't know the world production of natural gas.
olyz wrote:
I can assure you they don't mean at the temperature and pressure 100km above the Empire State Building on May 5 2019. STP maybe?

Non-sequitur fallacy. Production of natural gas has nothing to do with altitude or the Empire State Building.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 02:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Couple of weeks ago, I had a thought about CO2 production, and saw there is another source, that probably isn't to far off from that produce by burning stuff, fermentation. The main difference though, is that it's a natural process, and pretty much no way to measure, monitor, but most importantly tax or control. It's most familiar in the production of alcohol, beer, wine, spirits, fuel, and we produce a lot each year. We also use fermentation a lot in the food industry, like bread and cheese, for the pizza that goes so well with the beer. It happen quit a bit in nature, since is basically part of the decomposition process, when things rot, and there is a lot of stuff rotting in the ground.

For some reason, only man-made CO2, from 'fossil fuels', are the only cause of 'climate change', because it's unnatural for fossil fuels to get pulled out the ground, and burned. Fermentation is a natural process, true enough, but we industrialized it, far beyond the natural level. It's a little ironic that some of the 'tree-buggerer' practices, to save the planet, are actual contributing to some of the same things they demonize. In Florida, they add alcohol to gasoline, 10% by volume. I burn about 15 gallons/week. Composting, to reduce/eliminate chemical fertilizers, is used quite a bit, basically fermenting to break down the organic matter, produces CO2, among other 'greenhouse' gasses. We plow farm fields, to help get the remains started, a speed of the rot process as well. But, of course none of any of this really matters, that's why it's call 'renewable'. We tend to use more of the plant, than nature does though, and release a hell of a lot more CO2, than would have been extracted naturally. A lot of that carbon would have gone into the ground, not into the air. We need to convert some of that carbon in the ground, into CO2, to feed the plants, which feed everything living...


I just opened a soda for lunch today, a source of CO2.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 02:51
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Couple of weeks ago, I had a thought about CO2 production, and saw there is another source, that probably isn't to far off from that produce by burning stuff, fermentation. The main difference though, is that it's a natural process, and pretty much no way to measure, monitor, but most importantly tax or control. It's most familiar in the production of alcohol, beer, wine, spirits, fuel, and we produce a lot each year. We also use fermentation a lot in the food industry, like bread and cheese, for the pizza that goes so well with the beer. It happen quit a bit in nature, since is basically part of the decomposition process, when things rot, and there is a lot of stuff rotting in the ground.

For some reason, only man-made CO2, from 'fossil fuels', are the only cause of 'climate change', because it's unnatural for fossil fuels to get pulled out the ground, and burned. Fermentation is a natural process, true enough, but we industrialized it, far beyond the natural level. It's a little ironic that some of the 'tree-buggerer' practices, to save the planet, are actual contributing to some of the same things they demonize. In Florida, they add alcohol to gasoline, 10% by volume. I burn about 15 gallons/week. Composting, to reduce/eliminate chemical fertilizers, is used quite a bit, basically fermenting to break down the organic matter, produces CO2, among other 'greenhouse' gasses. We plow farm fields, to help get the remains started, a speed of the rot process as well. But, of course none of any of this really matters, that's why it's call 'renewable'. We tend to use more of the plant, than nature does though, and release a hell of a lot more CO2, than would have been extracted naturally. A lot of that carbon would have gone into the ground, not into the air. We need to convert some of that carbon in the ground, into CO2, to feed the plants, which feed everything living...


I just opened a soda for lunch today, a source of CO2.


As did millions other people, some of which stop off after work, and have a beer, or few...
04-09-2019 02:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Couple of weeks ago, I had a thought about CO2 production, and saw there is another source, that probably isn't to far off from that produce by burning stuff, fermentation. The main difference though, is that it's a natural process, and pretty much no way to measure, monitor, but most importantly tax or control. It's most familiar in the production of alcohol, beer, wine, spirits, fuel, and we produce a lot each year. We also use fermentation a lot in the food industry, like bread and cheese, for the pizza that goes so well with the beer. It happen quit a bit in nature, since is basically part of the decomposition process, when things rot, and there is a lot of stuff rotting in the ground.

For some reason, only man-made CO2, from 'fossil fuels', are the only cause of 'climate change', because it's unnatural for fossil fuels to get pulled out the ground, and burned. Fermentation is a natural process, true enough, but we industrialized it, far beyond the natural level. It's a little ironic that some of the 'tree-buggerer' practices, to save the planet, are actual contributing to some of the same things they demonize. In Florida, they add alcohol to gasoline, 10% by volume. I burn about 15 gallons/week. Composting, to reduce/eliminate chemical fertilizers, is used quite a bit, basically fermenting to break down the organic matter, produces CO2, among other 'greenhouse' gasses. We plow farm fields, to help get the remains started, a speed of the rot process as well. But, of course none of any of this really matters, that's why it's call 'renewable'. We tend to use more of the plant, than nature does though, and release a hell of a lot more CO2, than would have been extracted naturally. A lot of that carbon would have gone into the ground, not into the air. We need to convert some of that carbon in the ground, into CO2, to feed the plants, which feed everything living...


I just opened a soda for lunch today, a source of CO2.


As did millions other people, some of which stop off after work, and have a beer, or few...

Driving the cars and trucks with put out varying amounts of CO2, depending on the efficiency of each engine. Of course, some put out CO, and some like to 'roll smoke' and put out carbon (soot).

As you see, there is really no way to measure CO2 produced.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 18:20
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Redid calculation from scratch and found slight error.

Yearly increase in ppmv CO2 assuming complete combustion of fossil fuels is approximately 6.4ppmv.

Coal Production: 8.515x10^9 tons, wiki
Oil Production: 4.5x10^9 tons, enerdata.net and wiki
Natural Gas Production: 2.36x10^9 tons
4.0x10^12m^3, enerdata.net
22.4L methane contains 12g carbon at STP.

Total weight carbon: 15.375x10^9 tonsC
Total weight CO2: 15.375x44/12=56.38x10^9 tonsCO2
Weight of Atmosphere: 5.75x10^15 tons

1ppmvCO2 = 1.524ppmwCO2*
Weight of CO2 in atmosphere corresponding to 1ppmvCO2:
(5.75x10^15)x(1.524x10^-6)= 8.73x10^9 tonsC02 per 1ppmvCO2

Total weight CO2 in atmosphere: 56.38x10^9 tonsCO2

So ppmv of CO2 put into atmosphere in one year by complete combustion of fossil fuels is:
56.38x10^9/8.732x10^9 = 6.5ppmv

Notes:
1) Assumptions: coal and oil are 100%C. Actually oil is about 90%
2) Thermodynamic efficiency is not an indication of combustion efficiency. You can have a 20% efficient power plant with 100% combustion efficiency. The extra heat is simply wasted.
3) I compared sources to confirm reasonable agreement in recent production.

The outline above serves as a model for dealing with variations from ideal combustion of all sources. It's a rough upper bound, it's better than nothing (ignorance).

*1ppmv to ppmw conversion: (Intro to Chemistry)
If 22.4L contains .22O2, .78N2, and .000001CO2 by volume, then fractional weight of CO2 is:
.000001x44/(.22x32+.78x28)=1.524ppmwCO2
04-09-2019 18:20
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Redid calculation from scratch and found slight error.

Yearly increase in ppmv CO2 assuming complete combustion of fossil fuels is approximately 6.4ppmv.

Coal Production: 8.515x10^9 tons, wiki
Oil Production: 4.5x10^9 tons, enerdata.net and wiki
Natural Gas Production: 2.36x10^9 tons
4.0x10^12m^3, enerdata.net
22.4L methane contains 12g carbon at STP.

Total weight carbon: 15.375x10^9 tonsC
Total weight CO2: 15.375x44/12=56.38x10^9 tonsCO2
Weight of Atmosphere: 5.75x10^15 tons

1ppmvCO2 = 1.524ppmwCO2*
Weight of CO2 in atmosphere corresponding to 1ppmvCO2:
(5.75x10^15)x(1.524x10^-6)= 8.73x10^9 tonsC02 per 1ppmvCO2

Total weight CO2 in atmosphere: 56.38x10^9 tonsCO2

So ppmv of CO2 put into atmosphere in one year by complete combustion of fossil fuels is:
56.38x10^9/8.732x10^9 = 6.5ppmv

Notes:
1) Assumptions: coal and oil are 100%C. Actually oil is about 90%
2) Thermodynamic efficiency is not an indication of combustion efficiency. You can have a 20% efficient power plant with 100% combustion efficiency. The extra heat is simply wasted.
3) I compared sources to confirm reasonable agreement in recent production.

The outline above serves as a model for dealing with variations from ideal combustion of all sources. It's a rough upper bound, it's better than nothing (ignorance).

*1ppmv to ppmw conversion: (Intro to Chemistry)
If 22.4L contains .22O2, .78N2, and .000001CO2 by volume, then fractional weight of CO2 is:
.000001x44/(.22x32+.78x28)=1.524ppmwCO2
04-09-2019 18:20
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Redid calculation from scratch and found slight error.

Yearly increase in ppmv CO2 assuming complete combustion of fossil fuels is approximately 6.4ppmv.

Coal Production: 8.515x10^9 tons, wiki
Oil Production: 4.5x10^9 tons, enerdata.net and wiki
Natural Gas Production: 2.36x10^9 tons
4.0x10^12m^3, enerdata.net
22.4L methane contains 12g carbon at STP.

Total weight carbon: 15.375x10^9 tonsC
Total weight CO2: 15.375x44/12=56.38x10^9 tonsCO2
Weight of Atmosphere: 5.75x10^15 tons

1ppmvCO2 = 1.524ppmwCO2*
Weight of CO2 in atmosphere corresponding to 1ppmvCO2:
(5.75x10^15)x(1.524x10^-6)= 8.73x10^9 tonsC02 per 1ppmvCO2

Total weight CO2 in atmosphere: 56.38x10^9 tonsCO2

So ppmv of CO2 put into atmosphere in one year by complete combustion of fossil fuels is:
56.38x10^9/8.732x10^9 = 6.5ppmv

Notes:
1) Assumptions: coal and oil are 100%C. Actually oil is about 90%
2) Thermodynamic efficiency is not an indication of combustion efficiency. You can have a 20% efficient power plant with 100% combustion efficiency. The extra heat is simply wasted.
3) I compared sources to confirm reasonable agreement in recent production.

The outline above serves as a model for dealing with variations from ideal combustion of all sources. It's a rough upper bound, it's better than nothing (ignorance).

*1ppmv to ppmw conversion: (Intro to Chemistry)
If 22.4L contains .22O2, .78N2, and .000001CO2 by volume, then fractional weight of CO2 is:
.000001x44/(.22x32+.78x28)=1.524ppmwCO2
04-09-2019 18:20
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
Redid calculation from scratch and found slight error.

Yearly increase in ppmv CO2 assuming complete combustion of fossil fuels is approximately 6.4ppmv.

Coal Production: 8.515x10^9 tons, wiki
Oil Production: 4.5x10^9 tons, enerdata.net and wiki
Natural Gas Production: 2.36x10^9 tons
4.0x10^12m^3, enerdata.net
22.4L methane contains 12g carbon at STP.

Total weight carbon: 15.375x10^9 tonsC
Total weight CO2: 15.375x44/12=56.38x10^9 tonsCO2
Weight of Atmosphere: 5.75x10^15 tons

1ppmvCO2 = 1.524ppmwCO2*
Weight of CO2 in atmosphere corresponding to 1ppmvCO2:
(5.75x10^15)x(1.524x10^-6)= 8.73x10^9 tonsC02 per 1ppmvCO2

Total weight CO2 in atmosphere: 56.38x10^9 tonsCO2

So ppmv of CO2 put into atmosphere in one year by complete combustion of fossil fuels is:
56.38x10^9/8.732x10^9 = 6.5ppmv

Notes:
1) Assumptions: coal and oil are 100%C. Actually oil is about 90%
2) Thermodynamic efficiency is not an indication of combustion efficiency. You can have a 20% efficient power plant with 100% combustion efficiency. The extra heat is simply wasted.
3) I compared sources to confirm reasonable agreement in recent production.

The outline above serves as a model for dealing with variations from ideal combustion of all sources. It's a rough upper bound, it's better than nothing (ignorance).

*1ppmv to ppmw conversion: (Intro to Chemistry)
If 22.4L contains .22O2, .78N2, and .000001CO2 by volume, then fractional weight of CO2 is:
.000001x44/(.22x32+.78x28)=1.524ppmwCO2
04-09-2019 18:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
olyz wrote:
Redid calculation from scratch and found slight error.
....

So ppmv of CO2 put into atmosphere in one year by complete combustion of fossil fuels is:
56.38x10^9/8.732x10^9 = 6.5ppmv

Thank you for correcting that. I was about to say something.


My question is whether you might have made an erroneous assumption about the nature of atmospheric CO2 ... an error commonly made in the discourse of Global Warming / Climate Change when discussing only one aspect of a cycle and ignoring the rest.

Does the combustion of fuel actually increase the atmospheric levels of CO2 or does it merely bump up the volume cycling through the atmosphere into plants back into the earth's crust into fuel into the atmosphere into plants into fuel and into the earth's crust into the atmosphere into plants, etc?

Are we really only discussing an estimated 56.38x10^9 ton bump in CO2 cycle volume?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2019 16:54
olyz
★☆☆☆☆
(87)
1) if you completely burn a year's production of fossil fuel, how much CO2 do you produce?
2) How does amount of CO2 stand in relation to amount of atmosphere (ppmv).

Found a chart which gives solubility of CO2 in water: .05gms/kgm . There are estimates of the amount of water. So how much of the max yearly production of CO2 by burning fossil fuels you could dissolve is easy.

How much would that change acidity? Is that significant? I don't know. I'm not a chemist. But you need some idea of how much CO2 you are dealing with.

Upper bounds are the mother's milk of engineering.
05-09-2019 17:17
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Estimates, are basically a wild guess...

CO2 is estimated to be about 0.04% of the atmosphere, so says the IPCC assessment report. Water covers about 80% of the planet surface, and pretty deep in places, unknown in some oceans. Basically, that's a whole lot of water, and a very small amount of CO2 available to be dissolved in water. Do your really think there is a measurable difference. I also believe reading something about saltwater being slightly alkaline. You'd have to neutralize a lot of that, before you could measure any acid level.

Oceans, even 'fresh' water, isn't the same as a beaker or flask full of distilled water, there is a lot of other crap already dissolved in it.
05-09-2019 19:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
olyz wrote:Found a chart which gives solubility of CO2 in water: .05gms/kgm . There are estimates of the amount of water. So how much of the max yearly production of CO2 by burning fossil fuels you could dissolve is easy.

Incorrect. CO2 dissolving in water is just one step in the cycle. The CO2 is released back into the atmosphere when the water evaporates.

Water does evaporate.

Then the CO2 goes into the atmosphere and is absorbed by plants. Then one of any number of things happens to those plants. The cycle continues. The cycle never stops.

olyz wrote: How much would that change acidity?

None.
CO2 + water -> carbonic acid.
Carbonic acid + evaporation -> water at previous pH and CO2.

The cycle continues. The cycle never stops.

olyz wrote: Is that significant?

Nope. Zero meets most definitions of "insignificant."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2019 19:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
olyz wrote:
1) if you completely burn a year's production of fossil fuel, how much CO2 do you produce?

Zero. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
olyz wrote:
2) How does amount of CO2 stand in relation to amount of atmosphere (ppmv).

Unknown. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2. Mauna Loa reports approx. 400ppm, but they are a single station on the ground and they are cooking their data. It's useless anyway.
olyz wrote:
Found a chart which gives solubility of CO2 in water: .05gms/kgm . There are estimates of the amount of water. So how much of the max yearly production of CO2 by burning fossil fuels you could dissolve is easy.

Zero. Fossils don't burn, so there is no CO2 from them.
olyz wrote:
How much would that change acidity?

Zero.
olyz wrote:
Is that significant?

No.
olyz wrote:
I don't know. I'm not a chemist. But you need some idea of how much CO2 you are dealing with.

Zero.
olyz wrote:
Upper bounds are the mother's milk of engineering.

The upper bounds of attempting to burn fossils is zero CO2. Fossils don't burn.


The Parrot Killer
06-09-2019 13:17
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
olyz wrote:
1) if you completely burn a year's production of fossil fuel

Aren't we pretty much using all we produce now? Otherwise there would be a real storage issue.

In terms of the data thrown around the change seems so teeny tiny even as claimed:


What's that 0.02 with a 30% increase in CO2? And .02 less alkaline at that, not technically acidic at all.
06-09-2019 19:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
olyz wrote:
1) if you completely burn a year's production of fossil fuel

Aren't we pretty much using all we produce now?

Yes. If we need more, we produce more.
tmiddles wrote:
Otherwise there would be a real storage issue.

We do store some for use as strategic supplies if a shortage develops suddenly for some reason or for buffering use. Each gasoline car, for example, stores about 10-15 gallons of gasoline.
tmiddles wrote:
In terms of the data thrown around the change seems so teeny tiny even as claimed:


What's that 0.02 with a 30% increase in CO2? And .02 less alkaline at that, not technically acidic at all.

I guess someday you should read up on the pH scale, acid-base chemistry, and buffering.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 12:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
I guess someday you should read up on the pH scale, acid-base chemistry, and buffering.

Can you recommend a text book you trust? (reading needs books)
07-09-2019 15:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I guess someday you should read up on the pH scale, acid-base chemistry, and buffering.

Can you recommend a text book you trust? (reading needs books)


OPENSTAX, Chapter 14.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-09-2019 18:24
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Why is Mauna Loa such great source of environmental data anyway? That whole area is highly volcanic, and very active. They have volcanoes erupting under water often enough, venting gasses almost constantly. Most of the planet has very little volcanic activity, compared to daily around Mauna Loa. I'm no climatologist, but I can understand that volcanoes do have a significant impact, and not representative of the planet.
07-09-2019 18:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5026)
HarveyH55 wrote: Why is Mauna Loa such great source of environmental data anyway? That whole area is highly volcanic, and very active. They have volcanoes erupting under water often enough, venting gasses almost constantly. Most of the planet has very little volcanic activity, compared to daily around Mauna Loa. I'm no climatologist, but I can understand that volcanoes do have a significant impact, and not representative of the planet.

Well put.

It stands to reason that any rational person will examine the Mauna Loa measurements and reduce them 20% to 30% for a more accurate estimate on the global average.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-09-2019 20:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: Why is Mauna Loa such great source of environmental data anyway? That whole area is highly volcanic, and very active. They have volcanoes erupting under water often enough, venting gasses almost constantly. Most of the planet has very little volcanic activity, compared to daily around Mauna Loa. I'm no climatologist, but I can understand that volcanoes do have a significant impact, and not representative of the planet.

Well put.

It stands to reason that any rational person will examine the Mauna Loa measurements and reduce them 20% to 30% for a more accurate estimate on the global average.


.


Unfortunately, that would be cooking the data, making it useless. (Mauna Loa already cooks the data. They are not reporting the spikes from nearby volcano activity, which isn't constant.)

Cooked data in statistics is utterly useless. All you get is a cooked average, and of course the margin of error would be meaningless.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate CO2 emission from fossil fuels.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N24020-11-2019 11:11
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control814-11-2019 23:28
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact