Somehow, the turbulent events of recent years, such as Covid and various wars, have extinguished interest in the issues of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.
Of course, when the US president decides that coal has become clean and can be mined: he may mean that China is anyway mining it and the atmosphere is common. But probably not everyone should be a professional politician.
Do we SEE signs of relaxation processes to the pre-industrial CO2 level? Even against the background of increasing CO2 emissions?
The data are considered in the attachment (there is a link there, and I sent a request to the authors, maybe they are modifying the data). According to this data: the simplest model, according to which in 1850 the concentration was 295 ppm. and then 56% of the extracted carbon simply accumulates in the atmosphere: perfectly approximates the data of the Mauna Loa service for the period 1959-2016. The correlation coefficient is 99.94%. Thus, according to these data, relaxation processes are not observable. This does not mean that they are absent. But the non-observability can also disturb us.
This (attachment) is based on data from a large-scale project http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget.
Since the main physical channel of carbon leakage is the path into the ocean depths (slow, since free energy exists only on the surface of the ocean, and inside there is eternal peace), is it possible, according to their data, to SEE the leak? Or does the system SEEM to be closed? There is an approximation of their data by a simple model with leakage. It is approximated normally. The best leakage coefficient is -0.618% per year. Leakage into those very hypothetical depths. From what is in the conditional upper layer, which is also part of the biosphere, where photosynthesis and everything else occurs, as on Earth. Only the sign of this value is NEGATIVE. That is, as if carbon comes there from the depths in proportion to what is there. That is, according to these data: leakage into the depths IS NOT DETERMINED. NOT VISIBLE. Theoretically, it exists. But we don't see it.
Why it might be important. In a closed by carbon system, complex and interesting events are quite possible, including catastrophic ones (as the Biosphere 2 experience shows). But there are no events that lead to a change in the total amount of carbon.
If we add carbon to a closed system: it stays there for a very long time. For example, it can all go into the biota if we give plants such an opportunity. But it cannot simply disappear, returning the system to its original state.
Formally, a negative empirical coefficient in the dependence of carbon dioxide leakage into the ocean depths is possible, for example, with the following mechanism: due to global warming caused by the growth of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, the ocean warms up somewhat, and its solubility in water decreases in the ocean depths, where the total reserves are very large. However, firstly, replacing the negative coefficient with a zero one very slightly reduces the accuracy of the approximation (R² drops from 0.9766 to 0.9736), and secondly, warming would also reduce the solubility in the upper layers of the ocean. If we assume that the linear growth of the extraction rate will continue, since the current pretext is militarization to fight the enemy: then by 2050 we can expect that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will be more than 500 ppm, and by 2100 - more than 700 ppm. This is what the simplest forecast looks like. Let's recall Trump's opinion: https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-clean-coal-thing/story?id=119920490
Sorry may be it is too empirical approximation. Let me check. May be it can be visible some relaxation. Not high. If we use more physically logical model with more parameters.
Sorry, I still don't understand how to establish a complete leak from the system (atmosphere + biota + upper layers of the ocean) based on this data.
Discounted models.
This attempt to estimate the closure coefficient is based on the approximation of atmospheric carbon data by discounted models (the amount in the previous year is added with a coefficient slightly less than one). Two options are considered: approximation of the total amount of fuel, and approximation of the share of fuel proportional to the share of atmospheric growth in relation to the total growth in the atmosphere, ocean and biota.
In both cases, the correlation is high. In the first case, the leakage is 0.61% per year. In the second: 0.45% per year. Unfortunately, this may not be a consequence of a real leakage, but simply the fact that with such an approximation, the noise of earlier data has a stronger effect, and it is advantageous to suppress it during regression.
Nevertheless, with some degree of confidence, we can assume that this is an upper estimate of the leakage value: no more than 0.5% per year.
This would mean, for example, that at least 50% of what is emitted into the atmosphere today will still be there in a hundred years.
The growth of CO2 on the one hand increases the biota, and on the other: is associated with the risks of global warming. In the first case, the current strategy of increasing fossil fuel production is a form of long-term care for descendants. In the second case, the opposite.
Details of statistical analysis and refinement.
Attached is a file with a discussion of the situation of the influence of data errors, as well as a calculation file with a small change to take into account the relaxation process to the pre-industrial state in the absence of emissions (within the accuracy of the Excel solver, this modification did not change the results of the relaxation rate estimate).
Example of dependence of the closure factor on additional assumptions. The attached file presents the results of the following approximation. In this case, the fraction of CO2 entering the atmosphere (rather than the ocean and biota) due to fuels varied. If this fraction is 59.1%, then in this model the best approximation corresponds to 100% closure. In the case where 100% enters the atmosphere, the best approximation corresponds to a leakage of 1.6% per year. Note that this situation is somewhat unphysical: the leakage occurs via a dissolution stage in the ocean, and in this case there is no dissolution.
More effort to determine the closure factor (indicating how long it will take to relax to the pre-industrial state) is probably desirable.
yes, it relaxes some what do to CO2 concentration increases. So the main thing to mitigate such hazards that affect the future generation afforestation is the way to handle it.
2100 year situation:
According simplest estimation attached: with current trend of linear INCREASING fossil fuels usage: in 2100 CO2 can be 2.57 time higher then postindustrial.
For human breath: no serious risks.
For plants: it may be better.
Unclear (at least for me): global warming.
Nevertheless: I think no need to do it. Why. There are some risks. And it is absolutely clear. That it all doing not for peoples. Politicians simply want more dependence peoples of them. “Modern” technologies increasing this dependence. It is not only about global warming risks.
Not postindustrial. Pre industrial of course. Then 280 ppm.. (There was a computer' "improvement", sorry).
Agricultural production and CO2 concentration
Based on the available data (attachment), we can try to judge whether the concentration of carbon dioxide affects productivity. The second factor is the improvement of agricultural technologies, which can also be associated with the use of fossil fuels.
Data for the world as a whole (from 1961 to 2022) provide a good (99.7%) correlation of agricultural productivity per unit area with the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But at the same time, the zero point of the dependence (when plants would stop growing due to a lack of carbon dioxide) is determined as 270.63 ppm.. While according to biological data it is about 150 ppm..
We can also try to verify the position of this "z-point" according to regional data by plotting the dependence of its average position over the interval from the maximum correlation to the specified one. This graph is also in the attachment, and does not provide grounds for significantly changing the assessment for the world as a whole.
However, the influence of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations (positive) as one of the factors cannot be excluded.
Some assessments of the possibility of returning to zero-emission technologies(attachment).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Indexes