What to do about global warming - 2: The carbon dioxide life cycle
Annual and Cumulative CO2 emissions (IPCC 2014, Figure 1.d)

What to do about global warming - 2: The carbon dioxide life cycle

This article continues a series. The first article is here.

Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document the history of human-generated carbon-dioxide emissions into the atmosphere (IPCC, 2014). In Figure 1 we show the published history of annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and the cumulative CO2 emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

No alt text provided for this image

Figure 1. Annual and cumulative CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2014, Figure 1.d)

As of 2011, the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is about 2050 Gt (Gigatonnes or trillion kilograms). These cumulative emissions have resulted in increasing the pre-industrial levels of CO2 from 280 ppm (parts per million) to greater than 400 ppm (2184 Gt of additional CO2 corresponds to doubling CO2 from 280 ppm).

What happens to the CO2 in the atmosphere? It’s complicated. However, three things happen concurrently, but with different time scales (Archer, 2009):

  • CO2 dissolves into the ocean (decades to hundreds of years)
  • CO2 is taken up by plants (decades to hundreds of years)
  • CO2 is removed by geologic processes, combining to create calcium carbonate (CaCO3) and calcium oxide (CaO) (thousands to tens of thousands of years).

(Archer, 2009) notes that CO2 effects depend on the quantity release (1000 Petagram (10^15 g, or 1000 Gt) Carbon vs. 5000 Pg (1 Pg of Carbon is 1 Gt of Carbon or 3.67 Gt of CO2):

"The equilibration time scale for ocean invasion, calculated by a least squares fit of an exponential to the CO2 concentration trajectory, is about 250 ± 90 years for the 1000 Pg C release spike, and 450 ± 200 years for the 5000 Pg C release." (Archer, 2009)

We display in Figure 2 a rendering and curve-fit of this, with the curve fit as

Fraction Remaining=-0.8120*ln(t) 0.800273.

No alt text provided for this image

Figure 2. Fraction of CO2 remaining vs. time for Archer (1000 Pg case), and a best-fit.

The adopted curve fit is between the 1000 Pg and 5000 Pg cases of (Archer 2009) at the century mark, and underestimates the residual amount after a few thousand years (which may cause us to slightly underestimate the temperature effects in that time period). As one can see, even after two hundred years there remains about 30% of the initial CO2 added. Put another way, even if carbon dioxide emissions could cease abruptly, they remain in the atmosphere long after we are told we “must do something”.

Let us then consider a thought experiment: suppose we were able, by some means, to eliminate all human-generated carbon dioxide emissions beginning in 2020. Then the annual emissions from the beginning of the industrial revolution about 1850 would look like Figure 3 (the annual emissions growth rate from the IPCC is approximately 1.5%):

No alt text provided for this image

Figure 3. Modeled annual CO2 emissions (Gt) from 1850 with cutoff in 2020.

The cumulative CO2 emissions would then look like Figure 4.

No alt text provided for this image

Figure 4. Cumulative CO2 emissions (Gt) from 1850 assuming zero emissions beginning in 2020.

We apply the decay model of Figure 2 to the annual emissions each year and determine the residual carbon dioxide based on the emissions and decay of all prior years. Given the decay rate of CO2 in Figure 2 and the annual emissions of Figure 3, the amount of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere each year is displayed in Figure 5:

No alt text provided for this image

Figure 5. Net CO2 (Gt) remaining in the atmosphere assuming emissions cease in 2020.

The peak occurs in 2020 with about 50% of the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted still remaining, and slowly decays thereafter. However, even after 1000 years (2850) 50% of the peak (or about a quarter of all emissions) remains in the atmosphere, even if emissions cease in 2020! The equilibration with the ocean is occurring as expected.

A more realistic time frame for reducing CO2 emissions might be that, beginning in 2020, we cease increasing CO2 emissions and begin reducing CO2 emissions exponentially with a 100-year decay constant, as in Figure 6:

No alt text provided for this image

Figure 6. Annual CO2 emissions (Gt) from 1850 with decrease beginning in 2020.

While this approach would seem to satisfy the urgency to “do something”, this scenario reduces human-generated CO2 emissions to pre-industrial levels in about 300 years (2350). What would be the effect on human-generated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Figure 7 displays the total cumulative carbon dioxide emissions for this scenario:

No alt text provided for this image

Figure 7. Cumulative CO2 emissions (Gt) from 1850 assuming peak emissions in 2020 and 100-year exponential decay).

In this scenario CO2 emissions continue, though at a decreasing rate, and the cumulative carbon dioxide continues to increase for another 500 years or so to a level about double that of the “hard cutoff” scenario.

The effect on the level of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere can be calculated using the same decay model in Figure 2 for each years' emissions, and yields remaining atmospheric CO2 as in Figure 8:

No alt text provided for this image

Figure 8. Net CO2 (Gt) remaining in the atmosphere assuming emissions begin an exponential decrease in 2020.

As indicated in Figure 8, the peak level of CO2 occurs about the year 2250 and is about twice the value see with the sharp cutoff model. After a thousand years (2850) there remains about 80% of the peak value.

What does all this mean? As can be seen in the analysis and figures, it’s difficult to get the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere once it’s put there. So, even if we cease emissions immediately (extremely unlikely) or begin reducing our carbon dioxide emissions immediately (possible), the atmosphere will continue to hold significant human-generated CO2 for hundreds to thousands of years. This presents a significant challenge for any approach to managing global warming that relies primarily on eliminating or reducing the use of fossil fuels.

But what about the effect on global average temperatures? After all, it was previously stated that the focus should be on temperature not carbon dioxide. If the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere determines the future global average temperature, then the slow decay of carbon dioxide suggests that there is a long-range effect on global average temperature. We take this up in the next installment.

Works Cited

(c) 2019 Ronald S. Carson. All rights reserved.

Richard Beasley

Interested in the ‘big picture’ and connections Retired from Rolls-Royce and now available to offer ‘Systems Advice’ to help you understand Systems Engineering and / or your problem / system of interest

4y

Not time to read article in depth (yet!). Have you considered active extraction of Co2 to make either synthetic carbon fuel, or better as part of H2 (as fuel) generation cycle? Or just extracting CO2 (at sone cost, but like we pay for more localised clean ups). It’s what we could use carbon tax revenue for

Ron Carson, PhD, ESEP

Systems Engineering Fellow and Expert

4y

Thank you for the comments so far (I expect more). Yes, please forward and share these articles. I would appreciate a very broad exposure as I attempt to apply SE to this problem. Regarding the CO2 persistence: there was much critique in the (Archer 2009) reference regarding how the CO2 persistence is not being handled properly in the IPCC summaries and that people seem to be drawing erroneous conclusions from it. A link to the (Archer 2009) preprint is included at the end of this second article. I think these erroneous conclusions include a belief that "all we have to do is control CO2 emissions" and things will be fine. I am not so optimistic based on my analyses. As regards where this series is going: the next installment will show the expected temperature increases in response to the carbon dioxide profiles. This will be followed by some analyses of  carbon dioxide sequestration and other "carbon-capture" methods. Then I will begin addressing the more fundamental problem as identified in my INCOSE 2019 paper, which is available as another article in my LinkedIn profile https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/alternatives-managing-atmospheric-warming-ron-carson-phd-esep/.

Like
Reply

Dr Carson, thanks for sharing. I saw NASA’s report earlier this year and their day was equally concerning. What I see in your paper that was not in the NASA data is the persistence of high carbon dioxide levels long after the initial emissions. May I share this article?

Like
Reply

So interresting article, but also quite depressing to read. We know the root cause, but still the challange remains to convince the rich countries to stop consuming like today and be willing to pay and help developing countries in the same time. The politicians are not willing to do drastic things that "damage" just one countries economics and the global community is to weak. Any ideas, besides cutting down fossil fuels, drive electric cars, recycle and eat vegetables? Most of this is plastic surgery to make us sleep better at night.

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics