CO2 emission from fossil fuels.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

olyz wrote:
Coal converts directly to tons of carbon.

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

olyz wrote:
Natural gas requires a little elementary chemistry to get weight of carbon per m^3, and then convert that to tons.

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

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

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.

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.

olyz wrote: Coal converts directly to tons of carbon.

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

olyz wrote:
It's an order of magnitude check:

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

olyz wrote:
Coal and oil are approximately 90% carbon.

olyz wrote:
Natural gas is essentially methane, CH4, and you have to find equivalent carbon content of yearly production.

olyz wrote:
Variation in atmospheric pressure is meaningless in this calculation.

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.

olyz wrote:
There is no hocus pocus or hand waving involved.

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.

olyz wrote:
If someone estimates CO2 consumption by worlds forests would you complain if they were off by 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.

olyz wrote:
It's like saying trees consume CO2

olyz wrote:
but cows farting create CO2 so they balance each other out.

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.

olyz wrote:
Whether it's 4.89756 or 5.13856ppmv is 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.

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.

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

olyz wrote:
EDIT:
As for the chemistry, since it was brought up, 22.4 liters of methane, CH4, contain 12 gms of carbon.

olyz wrote:
That's all you need to know,

olyz wrote:
plus conversion factors,

olyz wrote:
to convert cubic meters of methane to tons of carbon.

olyz wrote:
Sorry you missed the point and didn't understand the simple calculation.

olyz wrote:
The point being that 2ppmv because of burning fossil fuel was not unreasonable and if anything, low.

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

olyz wrote:
I said your argument was like cows farting CO2 balancing tree CO2 consumption to make an Obvious point.

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.

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

olyz wrote:
Above gives 2019 world production of natural gas as 4000bcm.

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?

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...

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.

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...

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

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.

olyz wrote: How much would that change acidity?

olyz wrote: Is that significant?

olyz wrote:
1) if you completely burn a year's production of fossil fuel, how much CO2 do you produce?

olyz wrote:
2) How does amount of CO2 stand in relation to amount of atmosphere (ppmv).

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.

olyz wrote:
How much would that change acidity?

olyz wrote:
Is that significant?

olyz wrote:
I don't know. I'm not a chemist. But you need some idea of how much CO2 you are dealing with.

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

olyz wrote:
1) if you completely burn a year's production of fossil fuel

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?

tmiddles wrote:
Otherwise there would be a real storage issue.

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.

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

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)

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.

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.


.