Where does all the carbon go?

Question

If we continue to burn fossil fuels without producing a carbon sink such as growing lots of trees or pumping carbon dioxide underground will carbon dioxide levels increase over time even with a reduction in carbon emissions? If not why not? Does some dissolve in the oceans or is some laid down as inorganic carbonates for example?

Answer 1

Well, if more of a "new" carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels will be getting into the atmosphere (at present humanity produces about 7 billion metric tonnes of carbon per year, only a certain part of which is being absorbed by vegetation and oceans), then the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are bound to increase over time, even if emissions start to decrease in absolute terms (which is the goal but not the reality, so far).

And, if the concentrations continue to grow then past a certain threshold (estimated to be surpassed around 2030) ecological systems that so far acted as carbon net sinks suddenly become carbon net emitters. First of all, vegetation and oceans. As temperature grows, forests might die much faster than their replacement rate by new plant species. Then emissions from decaying or burning wood, and from the soil carbon exposed to the air and sun will be greater than amount of carbon locked in a new vegetation.

Similar with oceans: as they become more acid, at some point the PH factor might become too low for calcium carbonate (CaCO3) to form to build shells and skeletons of marine organisms, including corals. Limestones would also stop from forming, and instead start to dissolve in water and get into atmosphere. Even more carbon dioxide would then be released, and the concentration would grow with accelerated driven by a positive feedback loop (greater the concentration in atmosphere => bigger emissions from terrestrial and marine ecosystems, even if human-produced emissions are decreasing).

I hope this answered your questions, but please provide comments if you want to know specifics.

Answer 2

There are two periods in human history: Before and After the Industrial Revolution of 1850.

Before 1850, everything seemed Cyclical and humanity would last forever.

After 1850, coal and oil came into wide use, average longevity grew, infant mortality dropped and world population grew at a compounding rate.

But, the soil and the oceans absorbed all the Carbon, in the form of Carbon Dioxide gas.

Now, the oceans cannot absorb more CO2 and the soil not only is not absorbing Carbon but it is releasing Carbon, buried long ago, due to forest fires.

So, now we are going to cut back on the amount of CO2 Emissions but we are doing nothing about the CO2 that is already warming up the globe.

It was recently noted that the places with the greatest increases in temperature are the coldest, near the poles.

Antarctica has increased in temperature more than twice what has been seen in the oceans. If, or when, the glaciers in the South Pole melt the ocean levels will rise over 20 feet.

Some people say more and scare most of us, that is not necessary. When the average day temperature reaches 150 degrees Fahrenheit, even animals will not survive.

Sure, we can put air conditioned air in cow barns...

Will you pay $20 a lb for meat? The Japanese already do.

In other words, we must stop using coal and oil and use the wind and solar radiation to make electricity for homes and cars and trains and air conditioners.

The truth is that energy from windmills dropped from 38 Cents per Kilowatt-hour to Three (3) cents. And, do not listen to all that tell you we don't have enough space for all the windmills needed. New technology makes it possible for FOUR mid-west states, including Texas, could produce all the energy the U.S. used in the year 1991, the year the federal government made the study.

Solar panels are not only cheaper now, they are also more efficient and require less space. The latest versions make use of computer chilp manufactoring technology and reached a goal in efficiency some said it was impossible. The energy conversion efficiency reached over 40 Percent (42%).

The only people that do not face the facts are the managers of the auto companies in the U.S., the rest of the world already knows it and the Japanese and Europeans produce the most efficient cars, some Hydrogen powered, like BMW7.

Answer 3

Eventually it will go into the oceans, where over a few thousand years a little more calcite, dolomite, and aragonite will dissolve to neutralize the excess acidity.  

Jim:  The calculation of the expected decrease in ocean surface pH is easily done with free software.  IF you are looking for peer-reviewed places where this information appears, check out Caldeira et al., GRL, 2007, 34, L18608, doi:10.1029/2006GL027288, for only one of many instances where people "put numbers" on the expected pH decrease in the oceans due to atmospheric CO2.  

From Table 1 in the above reference, an increase of atm. CO2 to 500 ppm will lead to a 0.23 drop in pH.  That is highly significant to marine organisms and a change of greater than 0.2 violates US EPA regulations for seawater.

Answer 4

The main components of automobile exhaust are nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and water vapor (H2O). Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) and the most significant Greenhouse Gas emitted in the U.S. (with 82-84% of all U.S. emissions).Increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change.

The 700 million cars currently on the world's roads produce 2.8 billion tons of CO2 annually. This represents 20% of the world's CO2 emissions.

The CO2 emission standards can be referred to the fuel or to the vehicle :

The European Union is moving towards fuel mandatory CO2 standards and USA has reflected it in the Greenhouse Gas Score.

There are information, but mandatory, standards for CO2 limits in vehicle (engine) emissions, excepting some concrete or state regulations (e.g. CAFE or California Air Resources Board).

A low-carbon economy is an economy in which the growth of carbon dioxide emissions from the use of carbon based fuels (coal, oil and gas) is halted and then significantly reduced. The full reduction (phase-out) appears later only in the zero-carbon (also called post carbon) economy, where any carbon emissions are not allowed.

Low-carbon economy is related with low-carbon society.

Such a low-carbon economy is reached by many states and proposed by organizations as a necessity in order to mitigate the effects of global warming. It might also be hastened by future shortages of oil (Hubbert peak theory) and the associated increases in energy prices that are predicted to come, coupled with anticipated increases in energy demand as countries such as China and India continue their industrialization and coalization.

A low-carbon economy might be brought about through the use of energy efficiency measures (a key feature in the Vienna Climate Change Talks 2007 was a United Nations report that showed how energy efficiency could yield significant cuts in emissions at low cost) and the substitution of renewable energy sources for fossil fuels and nuclear power (Note: nuclear power does not emit any greenhouse gases, including transport electrification. Also proposed - as a method for mitigating global warming - is a direct quota on global fossil fuel production.

Whilst many in the traditional "environmentalist" movement are skeptical of the use of nuclear power, citing concerns over issues such as the long-term disposal of radioactive waste, the majority of scientific opinion is that the use of nuclear energy is one important option which must be kept on the table, given its large potential to displace highly greenhouse-gas intensive fossil fuel based energy generation systems, given the potential for grave consequences as a result of anthropogenic forcing of climate change. France and Sweden, for example, whose electricity generation is 78% and 48% from nuclear energy respectively, and have some of the lowest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world, provide evidence for the effectiveness of this approach to displacing the use of carbon dioxide-intensive fuels. Sweden and France have been able to eliminate the use of fossil fuels almost entirely, through the use of nuclear energy and renewable energy systems, such as hydroelectricity. In recent years, several prominent environmentalists, including James Lovelock, Tim Flannery and Stewart Brand have spoken out in support of the use of nuclear energy, given the grave concerns over the potential damage of anthropogenic forcing of climate change.

In 2004, France stopped mining coal, because nuclear power now provides 80% of its electricity. [4] A single coal power plant in the U.S. emits more air pollution, more carbon dioxide, more NOx, more sulfur dioxide, and more particulates, than all 59 of France's nuclear reactors combined. [5] Nuclear power gives France the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity in all of Europe.

New technologies such as hydrogen power and carbon capture and storage may also be involved, in the long-term future, although hydrogen is not an energy source in and of itself, merely an energy storage medium, and must be generated from water using some source of energy.

In the European Union and other territories the right to emit carbon dioxide is included in carbon emissions trading schemes,[6]. Also it can be subject to carbon taxes.

A low-carbon economy may be judged to be more economically efficient (cost-effective) than high-carbon economy, because of the higher energy efficiency of low carbon energies, existing technological improvements, increases in the costs of carbon fuels, and the introduction of carbon trading or carbon taxes.

Answer 5

Everytime we burn fossil fuels in oxygen we produce carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide,  the carbon atoms  fuses with oxygen atoms and these are locked together and sits in the atmoshere like a piece of coal suspended between two ballons absorbing the suns heat and warming up the air, hence global warming.

Now what we have to do is find away of separating those carbon and oxygen atoms so that the oxygen can be used again to keep us alive and the carbon can be absorbed back into the earth and the best way to do that is to plant trees because this is exactly what trees do better than anything else on earth, during the process of photosynthesis the tree seperated the carbon atom, that it absorbes by the tree, from the oxygen  atoms that are sent right back into the atmoshere to sustain life.

We only have a certain amount of oxygen on this planet, I mean, it's not like we are importing any from anywhere else, what we have is all we got,  so storing CO2 undergrowned is the wrong move, we must put it back into the cycle and  simply plant more trees to brake it down, and global warming will be history.

Answer 6

Into the ocean, which contains fifty times as much CO2 as does the atmosphere, and can absorb a lot more.  CO2 dissolves in the ocean, and combines with calcium ions there to precipitate out (in shallow seas) as limestone.

Answer 7

I'm more worried about Nitrogen, our atmosphere's full of it. It's a far more volatile and reactive matter with free-radical abilities that can and do induce a heatwave over several countries at once.

Answer 8

First law of thermodynamics (paraphrased): one cannot destroy nor create matter... only alter it.  Burning fossil fuels is simply an example of the first law in action.  The carbon doesn't go anywhere.  It simply changes.  If you stick around long enough... carbon will turn into diamonds.  And I mean stick around a REAL long time.  lol

Answer 9

Where it goes depends on its mode of transportation.  However, it doesn't actually matter where it goes.  The greater issue at hand is that matter can only be compressed, expanded, converted, or combined.  Even if we do dissolve it in the oceans or lay it into inorganic carbonates, it remains there.  So to answer your question, as long as we burn fossil fuels the CO2 levels will continue to rise at a rate directly determined by fuel consumption regardless of how we handle the CO2.

Answer 10

The sea is a huge carbon store.  So are the rainforests, and as they are being cut down this in its turn produces carbon with nowhere for it to go except the atmosphere. which then increases the greenhouse effect, by trapping the CO2 and slowly warming up the planet.

Answer 11

just like to say ,that the united nations ipcc what ever they are called,are just a bunch of highly paid people who claim to be science's,they are mouth pieces for governments who are trying to scare,create more nuclear power stations,any information coming from them you should ignore,most of the top climate change sciences have left this organisation,because of the bull they have in there reports,as for the biggest green house gases ,water is the top green house gas ,carbon is a very small element,in are atmosphere .a lot of what people talk about climate change ,is unproved ideas,we talk about the planet heating up,what happens if it cools down ,people point to the North pole,and say it is melting ,there has been record amounts of ice forming in the south pole ,nobody tells you that do they!!!,be very careful about government backed people talking about climate change,,,alot of these people have a lot to lose if it is not on the national agenda ,ask them for prove .the people who argue against climate change can prove everything that this is a natural change ,people who say this is man made ,and we are the cause ,can prove nothing or very little

Answer 12

If you do some reading on the carbon cycle, you will find that carbon is leaving the atmosphere at approx half the rate we are emmitting it by burning fossil fuels.  The environment is able to absorbe a significant amount of man made carbon.

There are some theories about where it all goes.  Apparetly some dissolves in the oceans, the mass of plant life might be increasing (although jungles like the Amazon are continually being logged).  Plankton might be absorbing some then dying and sinking to the bottom of the ocean putting the carbon into long term storage.

Answer 13

Here's how it works:

Scrubbing trees are planted to scrub C02 from the atmosphere. You buy Carbon Offsets to pay for this.

Carbon Offset scammers claim to have Chinese tree scrubbing farms working day & night to give you guilt-free carbon release.

We are against out-sourcing jobs to China just because Chinese trees work cheaper.



How we do it:

Forego our purchase of Gulfstream G5.

Give dirty looks to SUV driving soccer moms.

No limo rides to Oscars.

Limit personal off-gassing. (if you know what i mean!)

We plant stuff too.

How you can help:

Paper, not plastic at grocery store.

p**p in the dark.

Turn thermostat down to 60 in winter for northern hemispherers.

Visit relatives less.

Recycle baby's diapers.

Don't encourage the homeless, it only encourages them.

Cancel your cable subscription.

Cancel your cell phone.

Study a hard science, not liberal arts.

Answer 14

The ocean is where most of the carbon dioxide is stored.  Carbon in the form of calcite is present in limestones.  Limestones and closely associated dolomites are formed from carbon (CaCO3) precipated from warm ocean water and also from reefs, also generally in warm water.  The mantle has most of the worlds carbon and it will never reach the surface.  

Based on new theories, much of the originally accreted carbon is released over time by the earth as hydrocarbons, mostly methane by upwelling through cracks.  The methane quickly converts to CO2 in the atmosphere.  The upwelling carbon can be temporarily stored in petroleum deposits,  as high grade coal or methane hydrate deposits.  

Some carbon that gets subducted by oceanic plates may return to the mantle but generally, I think the amount being sequestered in that way is minimal.  

When there are periods of warming, the CO2 is released by the ocean into the atmosphere and also it tends to be chemically precipitated in the oceans as well.  CO2 levels historically follow temperature increases and decreases and don't seem to cause them.  Those that suggest that we are causing warming by increasing the CO2 levels must ignore natural trends which we don't understand very well.  They cannot say that we caused the recent warming.   They can only suggest that we added to it.  If the natural trend turns colder, then perhaps the increased CO2 we add will tend to moderate the cooling.  Either way, I think our contribution to temperature is probably not significant or harmful.

There has been some hype lately about CO2 increasing the acidity of the oceans and endangering reefs.  I don't think this is a great concern and you will note that those suggesting this sort of thing don't talk real numbers.  For example, they won't tell you how much pH will decrease if we double atmospheric CO2.  The reason they don't is that they have no idea and in all likelihood, it wouldn't noticably change.

Answer 15

Rain takes carbon out of the atmosphere.