Arguments
Oceans are acidifying from absorbed CO2
What the science says...
Measurements of carbon isotopes and falling oxygen in the atmosphere show that rising carbon dioxide is due to the burning of fossil fuels and cannot be coming from the ocean.
Climate Myth...
CO2 is coming from the ocean
"The solubility of carbon dioxide in water is listed in the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics as a declining function of temperature. ... The rising values of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the time of the Mouna Loa measurements could clearly be a function of reduced solubility of CO2 in the oceans of the Planet." (Watts Up With That)
We can be confident the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has come from the oxidation of fossil fuels and not from outgassing from the ocean or from soil/land sources by using two key observations.
1. Oxygen decrease
Atmospheric oxygen is going down by the same amount as atmospheric CO2 is going up. Oxygen is so abundant at about 21% (209,500 ppm) that we are in no danger of running out; the change in oxygen simply shows that whatever the source of CO2 in the atmosphere, the carbon part of it has come from the oxidation of reduced carbon compounds and the oxygen has come from oxygen gas in the atmosphere. That is, the extra CO2 was not released in the form of CO2 from an unknown source but instead some reduced carbon compound was burnt in the atmosphere to produce CO2. See: AR3WG1 Section 3.5.1, especially Figure 3.4.
2. Known fossil fuel CO2 emissions
Most obviously, any alternative explanation for the source of the CO2 in the atmosphere has to also come up with where the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 known to be released by fossil fuel burning each year goes.
Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at about 2 ppmv per year (or 16 billion tonnes). That is, only around half of the CO2 we release remains in the atmosphere. The pH decrease in the oceans corresponds to most of the “missing” CO2, so we can also be confident that land use changes etc are not a major source/sink. Caveat: Land use and biomass changes certainly soak up a lot of CO2, some it simply regrowth of forests etc, but the point is that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere clearly demonstrates that they do not soak up enough.
In summary:
| Amount of increased CO2 in the atmosphere |
+ | Amount of increased CO2 in the oceans |
= | Amount of known fossil fuel emissions of CO2 |
Acknowledgements: this post was written by New Zealand chemical oceanographer, Doug Mackie.
Update July 2015:
Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Last updated on 10 July 2015 by pattimer. View Archives
But Oceans outgas co2 also where does this fit in the equation?
[TD] The exchange rates of CO2 going in and coming out of the oceans are known, along with the factors that influence those two rates. The net effect currently still is much more going in that coming out. See installment 9 of the OA is Not OK series.
Natural sources of carbon dioxide were reported to be 770,000 metric tons by the IPCC in 2001. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf
This far surpasses the anthropogenic output.
[PS] Conveniently ignoring natural sinks as well available from same source. In short, more rhetoric and not addressing pH, isotopic composition of CO2 in atmosphere, O2 changed raised here. Your response is yet another myth debunked here.
Just adding a reference on C14 measurement "Observations and modelling of the global distribution and long-term trend of atmospheric 14CO2". This demonstrates dilution of atmospheric C14 by fossil fuel burning. Also one on impact of FF burning of C14 applications in the future.
Sorry.... I started with a comment about me searching for the isotopic evidence that is stated in "what the science says" comment box. It is not clear in the article's evidence however I see that a few commentors have provided links.
I plan to have those links tattooed to my forhead so that when I meet a rather obnoxious climate change skeptic again, like I did at a party last night, and he claims that climate science is a hoax and that any increase in CO2 is coming from the oceans, I can counter that claim and have him search the evidence as we speak.
I jest of course. Thank you for this website and allowing me to vent. Climate skeptics can be frustrating, especially when they ambush with their arguments and you are 3 beers into what is supposed to be a fun night. This is my first time on this site and my first comment. I will post more valube comments in the future.
[DB] You can find a more detailed discussion of the isotopic evidence of the atmospheric rise in concentration of CO2 on this fine post by Tom Curtis.
I would be fascinated to hear how someone can claim that the CO2 increase is coming out of the ocean while at the same time CO2 dissolved in ocean in increasing (mass balance issue) and pH is decreasing. "voodoo economics" rides again? The CO2 we emit magically vanishes? Good luck - I doubt you are arguing with someone who is used to the idea that positions can be decided by data. I predict a fallback to some other argument, just as vehemently debated. Perhaps you should force them to state what data they would accept which would change their mind in advance.
In my opinion, I strongly agree that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has come from the oxidation of fossil fuels and not from outgassing from the ocean. Based from what the professionals say, CO2 emission in the atmosphere is less than half of fossil fuel emissions of CO2. Another half ends up in the ocean, which mean ocean isn't the factor of releasing CO2 to the atmosphere.
Even there are exchanging of CO2 between ocean surface and the atmosphere. But there is a huge range of differences between going in and releasing out of CO2 from ocean. Absorbtion is a lot higher of amount.
But my question is CO2 that dissolved in the ocean, even it dissolved for long time ago and also the ratio between dissolve in and release out are very different, where does the CO2 go? Is it going to be a long term effect to the ocean in the future?, thousands or millions of years after this.
Hi,
So the chemical reaction between hydrocarbons and oxygen are (hydrocarbon + 02 --> CO2 +H20). Lets take propane, for example. When combusting, we get (C3H8 + 5(O2) --> 3(CO2) + 4(H2O)). This article states that "Atmospheric oxygen is going down by the same amount as atmospheric CO2 is going up." From this equation, which I know is not the only type of fuel burned, CO2 is going up by 3 mols for every five mols of O2, so oxygen is burned faster than CO2 is emitted, which is the case for every hydrocarbon. This also doesn't account for impurities found in fossil fuels, like sulfur and nitrogen.
Im taking the 29 gigatons of CO2 emitted from this article. Doing some stoiciometry, we can find the number of tons of O2 that is being consumed by propane*.
29 gigatons = 2.9e+16 grams
2.9e+16 g / 44.01g = 6.5894115e+14 mols C02 produced, rounded to 6.6e+14 for significant figures.
(6.6e+14 mols CO2/3 mols CO2)(5 mols O2) = 1.1e+15 mols O2 consumed (sig figs)
1.1e+15 mols O2 is vastly greater than 6.6e+14 mols CO2.
In 1. Oxygen decrease, you say that the carbon part comes from reduced carbon compounds, and that the oxygen comes from the atmosphere, and I agree that burning fossil fuels uses oxygen from the atmosphere. But what I am not understanding is that O2 is decreasing at the same rate CO2 is increasing. O2 is consumed faster than CO2 is emitted, so O2 should be consumed at a 5:3 oxygen to carbon dioxide, which is not what your articles have been saying. If oxygen is decreasing by 5 ppm per year, CO2 should be increasing by 3 ppm, which is significantly different than the roughly 1:1 ratio suggested.
Where does this 2/5 discrepancy come from? Is there something I'm missing? If my math or reasoning is wrong, please show me where.
*I understand that propane is not the only type of fossil fuel burned, and is merely an example used in my argument. There will never be a 1-1 C02 to O2 ration when burning hydrocarbons, as is found in their balanced combustion reactions. The more complex hydrocarbons combust with a higher ratio of O2 to CO2 than propane, and simpler hydrocarbons combust at a lower ratio.
Thanks for your response.
B. M.
The language is possibly a little loose here. The detail is in Manning and Keeling 2006 and I see that in the O2 consumption calculation, they used:
"O2 consumed is calculated assuming full combustion of all fossil fuel
types, and using O2:CO2 molar ratios for each fuel type from Keeling
(1988). That is, O2:CO2 is 1.17 for solid fuel; 1.44 for liquid fuel; 1.95
for gas fuel; and 1.98 for flared gas. (Cement manufacture does not
consume O2)."
scaddenp @13,
There was the admission from Hairy Turtle @12 that propane was "is not the only type of fuel burned" but that propane was taken "for example" as a fossil fuel. So enumerating the ratios for the different fuels is good to see. Yet the pertinent number from Manning & Keeling (2006) is surely the average ratio of O2:CO2 for total emissions for all fossil fuels. The paper gives it as 1.39, a little lower than the value for propane given @12 as 5:3 or 1.66.
That 1.39 average value is an average for the 1990s. If you look at CO2 emissions by fuel-type through the years, the figure was dropping from the turn of the century as coal-use made a come-back, dropping from a high of about 1.40 down to 1.36 but subsequently with coal now less used, the ratio has now risen to something like 1.50 in recent years.
According to Bud Bromley, Henry's Law (who ever he was) governs how much CO2 is in the oceans and atmosphere and nothing humans do will change that. Explains in his blog post. So, I'm puzzled, now.
Likeitwarm @15,
"Who ever he was/is" also applies to the question of the merit of 'climate science' comments made by a blogger named Bud Bromley who has a strange range of blog topics.
Likeitwarm @15,
Maybe the SkS post "OA not OK Part 9: Henry the 8th I was (*)" would help unpuzzle you.
The link to the OA not OK part 9 that OPOF mentions is this:
https://skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_post_9.html
You can find links to each part of the entire series on that page, and you can also download a booklet containing the entire story.
https://skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_part_21.html
LIkeitwarm: You seriously need to stop believing some of the claptrap you are reading. Posting these one-liners is just running through the list of Most Common Climate Myths. Please try to come up with something that has not been debunked many times over.
@Bob Loblaw
I agree. I should have searched your site more thoroughly before making that post. Just trying to figure out who to believe. SKS seems to have a lot of supporting science.
On the topic, I see adding more CO2 to the atmosphere would also increase it in the ocean by whatever the ratio is.
Thanks for the education.
Likeitwarm:
Glad to hear that you find the resource useful. Just remember: on the upper left of every page (just below the masthead banner) there is a search box and links to the most common climate myths. Always at your fingertips (or whatever you click your mouse or trackball with). Make it your friend.
The "all CO2 comes from the ocean" myth is being commonly used this month and therefore that man cannot change the climate.
It seems obvious that burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere and so I set about calculating the volume of CO2 produced and comparing calculated ppm yearly increase to actual CO2 concentration change (around 2.5 ppm/year in 2024). Here is the approach:
35 billion metric tonnes of CO2 per year.
1 Kg of CO2 occupies 190L at standard pressure & temperature.
Earth radius is 6400 Km.
Volume of a sphere is 4/3 Pi r^3.
Assumed that CO2 is fully mixed.
Assume that effective atmosphere is no more than 10 Km. Obviously the atmosphere is higher but at 10Km the atmospheric pressure is 0.26 (see https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/international-standard-atmosphere-d_985.html)
I then calculate the volume of CO2 and divided by effective atmospehric volume* to work out CO2 ppm.
Using 10 Km then the calculated increase is 1.3 ppm.
Using 5 Km then the calculate increase is 2.6 ppm.
* By effective atmosperic volume I mean the height of the atmosphere if all the atmosphere was evenly compressed to 1 bar. I need to 'compress' atmosphere to 1 bar as I calculated CO2 volume at one bar.
Is there a better/published approach?
Pressure drops with altitude is not linear and I have not included temperature. So whilst perhaps Ok for a fag packet the approach is lacking some.
ThePooleMan:
I think it may be easier to just think in terms of mass, not volume. Total atmospheric mass, per square meter, is easily calculated from standard surface pressure. As a mass calculation, density, temperature, etc. become moot.
You can see more numbers on this page about the human contribution to atmospheric CO2. That the rise is due to anthropogenic releases can been seen on this web page.
ThePooleMan:
Also take a look at this post, which explains a simple mass balance approach to the cause of atmospheric CO2 increases.