In the Government Concentrates section of
Chemical and Engineering News, August 20 issue, there is a short article saying
that unless we undertake capture of carbon dioxide emission from power plants,
"long-term climate heating would increase by nearly 50%".
I thought I
would take a look at the reference, which is in Environmental Science &
Technology. I find that particular publication is part of the American Chemical
Society's retinue of magazines. Let's recall that the ACS is a big promoter of
large government and particularly a promoter of government grants to
universities. In turn, government grants to universities favor projects which
are advantageous to government policy, which is further increase in the size of
government and taxation to support it.
The article of interest came from
the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which is
almost a government agency. I was able to obtain only an abstract of the
article. Access to the full article have cost me $35, or I could get a
subscription to 250 articles for $500. I suspect this borders on limiting access
to data which should be publicly available.
Unfortunately, the abstract
does not mention the "50% increase in heating", which still leaves me in the
position of not knowing what it means. However, the abstract again goes on to
justify whatever claim it's making because of "cumulative radiative forcing".
This is a term which was invented by the environmentalists as a pseudoscientific
reason to justify their attempts to establish public fear of climate change
caused by carbon dioxide emissions.
In fact, there is no reason to
believe that any carbon dioxide emissions, which would increase carbon dioxide
concentration in the atmosphere, would have any effect on climate. Tests of heat
transfer through carbon dioxide are not significantly different than heat
transfer through oxygen and nitrogen, which are the major components of the
atmosphere. Carbon dioxide constitutes only about 0.025% of the atmosphere. At
that low concentration, any effect would be negligible, unless carbon dioxide
has some kind of magical property. The promoters of carbon dioxide capture have
invented the "cumulative radiative forcing" as the magical property, with no
explanation of how the magic works in the real world.
In essence the
government, with the assistance of universities and the American chemical
Society, continues its unrelenting pursuit of attempts to force power plants to
capture carbon dioxide from its emissions. If it is successful on this, all
power plants will undergo major cost increases for new equipment, which will be
passed on to the consumer in the form of higher electricity prices. In addition,
there will be penalties imposed by government, and we all know from the recent
decision of the Supreme Court on Obama care that it is difficult to distinguish
between a penalty and a tax. They are essentially the same, with government
obtaining money. Penalties paid by power companies will also be a "cost of doing
business" and passed on to the consumer in the form of increased electricity
prices. Do you want to pay a higher price for your electricity on government's
mystical claim that if you don't, climate change will really hurt
you?
Monday, September 17, 2012
Monday, August 6, 2012
Drought and Irrigation
An associate of mine, who is in the grain handling business, sent me the latest crop report. An excerpt of this is as follows: " Yield is no longer the only factor being
impacted by poor crop conditions. Traders are now taking harvested acreage
numbers into consideration. The million dollar question at this point will be
how many acres will not be harvested for grain, whether they’re chopped for
silage or disced under. The amount of farmers owning crop insurance has
increased significantly from 1988."
I replied to him as follows:
Bob,
Thanks for sending me the crop report. Several things come to mind.
The high proportion of insured farmers is obviously favorable to keep them in business, but as Larry says, the drought is so extensive and losses so widespread that there may be an excessive burden on the insurers. We can only hope that there is not.
With respect to crop quality and quantity, apparently there was sufficient germination, but the subsequent lack of water has left the "fruit" in a dehydrated and shrunken condition. Because the water content is low, the size of corn ears will be smaller and the weight lower. It will be generally unfit for human consumption, but cattle should be able to handle it with their grinding teeth and if given enough water. The shrunken kernels are also still usable for ethanol production, since normal procedures is to ferment a mash, which is obtained from ground kernels and added water, if necessary. Cereal processors also use the same procedure, without the fermentation. If I'm right about any of this, the situation may not be quite as bad as it appears.
As the report points out, farmers and their production are always victims of weather conditions, of which drought is the most significant. Local windstorms can easily wipe out a field or two, but that normally can be handled by crop insurance.
Since I now live in the Southwest, which is generally considered an arid area of the US, I have become much more cognizant of water needs in farming. We live in an area of highly concentrated cotton production, and rainfall is generally low. Dry land farming of cotton can be a crapshoot. Irrigated cotton is almost always profitable, although there is some variation in quantity and quality from year to year. Our water for irrigation comes from the Ogallala, which is an underground river having its origin in the Northern Rockies. Lubbock is the terminus of this aquifer (underground river), and we have seen it shrinking in recent years, as more and more farmers continue to draw on it for their irrigation needs.
For a possibility of additional irrigation, lets consider the general topography of the central US and its rainfall.
The Northwest Mountain states are Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, with an average annual rainfall of 12 inches. Lubbock has an average annual rainfall of 19 inches, which we know is marginal. Therefore, present rainfall in the Northwest Mountain states is insufficient and that topography is not conducive to large-scale production of field crops, such as corn and soybeans. Similarly, the Southwest Mountain states of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona have an average rainfall of 11 inches with poor topography.
Thanks for sending me the crop report. Several things come to mind.
The high proportion of insured farmers is obviously favorable to keep them in business, but as Larry says, the drought is so extensive and losses so widespread that there may be an excessive burden on the insurers. We can only hope that there is not.
With respect to crop quality and quantity, apparently there was sufficient germination, but the subsequent lack of water has left the "fruit" in a dehydrated and shrunken condition. Because the water content is low, the size of corn ears will be smaller and the weight lower. It will be generally unfit for human consumption, but cattle should be able to handle it with their grinding teeth and if given enough water. The shrunken kernels are also still usable for ethanol production, since normal procedures is to ferment a mash, which is obtained from ground kernels and added water, if necessary. Cereal processors also use the same procedure, without the fermentation. If I'm right about any of this, the situation may not be quite as bad as it appears.
As the report points out, farmers and their production are always victims of weather conditions, of which drought is the most significant. Local windstorms can easily wipe out a field or two, but that normally can be handled by crop insurance.
Since I now live in the Southwest, which is generally considered an arid area of the US, I have become much more cognizant of water needs in farming. We live in an area of highly concentrated cotton production, and rainfall is generally low. Dry land farming of cotton can be a crapshoot. Irrigated cotton is almost always profitable, although there is some variation in quantity and quality from year to year. Our water for irrigation comes from the Ogallala, which is an underground river having its origin in the Northern Rockies. Lubbock is the terminus of this aquifer (underground river), and we have seen it shrinking in recent years, as more and more farmers continue to draw on it for their irrigation needs.
For a possibility of additional irrigation, lets consider the general topography of the central US and its rainfall.
The Northwest Mountain states are Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, with an average annual rainfall of 12 inches. Lubbock has an average annual rainfall of 19 inches, which we know is marginal. Therefore, present rainfall in the Northwest Mountain states is insufficient and that topography is not conducive to large-scale production of field crops, such as corn and soybeans. Similarly, the Southwest Mountain states of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona have an average rainfall of 11 inches with poor topography.
The theoretical
breadbasket of the US is all of the area known as the Great Plains. This
constitutes an area from the Rocky Mountains eastward to the Mississippi River.
The possibility of agricultural production in this large area, considering
topography and rainfall, is:
The Great Plains states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico are borderline mountainous, but have significant usable agricultural portions if properly irrigated. The present average rainfall of these four states is only 12 inches (19 is marginal).
The next eastern line is North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Since all of the states are in the Great Plains, they are active ideally suited topologically for massive field crop agriculture. Generally their western portions are deficient in rainfall, although the average is 26 inches.
The net result of these observations is that there is a vast topographically suited land area available for massive field crop production providing water could be made available.
The federal government has been occupying itself with climate control, which is basically impossible. There is presently even little or no ability to control weather. Alternatively, should be considering a huge project to irrigate portions of the Great Plains.
There were two available sources of water.
The first is Great Lakes water, which is continually replenished by rainfall in the Northeast. The Mississippi is geographically closer, but is not a dependable source. It is now almost not navigable under present drought conditions. Generally the states bordering the Great Lakes regard this water as their personal property. It would take an act of Congress to declare it as "eminent domain" for the federal government.
The second is a salt water source from Baja California or the Gulf of Mexico. This water would have to be desalinated to an extent suitable for agriculture. However, such technology through super filtration or sometimes called reverse osmosis is available. Another difficulty is the elevation of the land area to be irrigated. The elevation of the land to be irrigated is 1200 feet on the east side and about 7800 feet on the west. The Great Lakes has an elevation of 600 feet, and seawater elevation is zero. In any case, water would have to be pumped to a higher elevation for practical gravity irrigation. The best source of power would be nuclear plants, which could be placed in remote areas to avoid the usual fear of nuclear by the general population.
With respect to pipelines for transmission and the subsequent restructuring of ground surfaces for gravity irrigation, we now have available very large earth moving machinery, the availability of fuel for its operation, and a large supply of unemployed manpower for its operation.
We are in an intensive financial recession, and many people are looking for employment opportunities. This is a project that would not only makes jobs, but accomplish something useful as a result. Recall that the Romans built aqueducts throughout Eastern and Western Europe and through the Mediterranean area and North Africa, all without the benefit of modern construction technology.
The Great Plains states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico are borderline mountainous, but have significant usable agricultural portions if properly irrigated. The present average rainfall of these four states is only 12 inches (19 is marginal).
The next eastern line is North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Since all of the states are in the Great Plains, they are active ideally suited topologically for massive field crop agriculture. Generally their western portions are deficient in rainfall, although the average is 26 inches.
The net result of these observations is that there is a vast topographically suited land area available for massive field crop production providing water could be made available.
The federal government has been occupying itself with climate control, which is basically impossible. There is presently even little or no ability to control weather. Alternatively, should be considering a huge project to irrigate portions of the Great Plains.
There were two available sources of water.
The first is Great Lakes water, which is continually replenished by rainfall in the Northeast. The Mississippi is geographically closer, but is not a dependable source. It is now almost not navigable under present drought conditions. Generally the states bordering the Great Lakes regard this water as their personal property. It would take an act of Congress to declare it as "eminent domain" for the federal government.
The second is a salt water source from Baja California or the Gulf of Mexico. This water would have to be desalinated to an extent suitable for agriculture. However, such technology through super filtration or sometimes called reverse osmosis is available. Another difficulty is the elevation of the land area to be irrigated. The elevation of the land to be irrigated is 1200 feet on the east side and about 7800 feet on the west. The Great Lakes has an elevation of 600 feet, and seawater elevation is zero. In any case, water would have to be pumped to a higher elevation for practical gravity irrigation. The best source of power would be nuclear plants, which could be placed in remote areas to avoid the usual fear of nuclear by the general population.
With respect to pipelines for transmission and the subsequent restructuring of ground surfaces for gravity irrigation, we now have available very large earth moving machinery, the availability of fuel for its operation, and a large supply of unemployed manpower for its operation.
We are in an intensive financial recession, and many people are looking for employment opportunities. This is a project that would not only makes jobs, but accomplish something useful as a result. Recall that the Romans built aqueducts throughout Eastern and Western Europe and through the Mediterranean area and North Africa, all without the benefit of modern construction technology.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Accidental Promotion of the Global Warming Hoax
A participant on the Neil Cavuto Fox News
program this Saturday morning said the SCIENCE has proven the disastrous effects
of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. There were no objections to this
statement among the other participants. This bothers me horrendously, because it
implied to the general viewing public that this is a correct assertion, since it
was not challenged by any of the panel experts.
However the fact is, that this is a hoax, which continues to be perpetuated by those expecting to make some kind of personal profit in its acceptance. The government is particularly anxious to have the public accept this assertion, because it brings tremendous new opportunities for taxation, with subsequent increase in government size and power.
Most people now have a high school education, part of which was to take a course in chemistry and another course in physics. With discussions of variability on quality of the courses aside, one can be sure that anyone taking these courses received at least a smattering of scientific thought process plus some basic understandings of chemistry and physics principles. The problem is that most these graduates, do not have the confidence of questionable thinking when so-called experts come out with new concepts, such as carbon dioxide relating to global warming. One of the reasons for this is that the experts develop their own lexicon of terms which intimidate average persons.
For a great many years all Roman Catholic masses were conducted completely in Latin. Similarly, the medical profession established use of Latin terms for various diseases and treatments. Botanists and others have done the same. While there is some practicality in using Latin designations, by and large this was done in order to preserve in the public eye a maintenance of esteem esteem for priests, medical doctors. Now big science has seized on this opportunity as well. But although, new terms are developed which can be intimidating to the public, all should be explainable to any person of reasonable intelligence who has received a high school degree. If not, the correct assumption would be that the perpetrator is hoodwinking the general public, and that is what is occurring in a matter of carbon dioxide relating to global warming.
However the fact is, that this is a hoax, which continues to be perpetuated by those expecting to make some kind of personal profit in its acceptance. The government is particularly anxious to have the public accept this assertion, because it brings tremendous new opportunities for taxation, with subsequent increase in government size and power.
Most people now have a high school education, part of which was to take a course in chemistry and another course in physics. With discussions of variability on quality of the courses aside, one can be sure that anyone taking these courses received at least a smattering of scientific thought process plus some basic understandings of chemistry and physics principles. The problem is that most these graduates, do not have the confidence of questionable thinking when so-called experts come out with new concepts, such as carbon dioxide relating to global warming. One of the reasons for this is that the experts develop their own lexicon of terms which intimidate average persons.
For a great many years all Roman Catholic masses were conducted completely in Latin. Similarly, the medical profession established use of Latin terms for various diseases and treatments. Botanists and others have done the same. While there is some practicality in using Latin designations, by and large this was done in order to preserve in the public eye a maintenance of esteem esteem for priests, medical doctors. Now big science has seized on this opportunity as well. But although, new terms are developed which can be intimidating to the public, all should be explainable to any person of reasonable intelligence who has received a high school degree. If not, the correct assumption would be that the perpetrator is hoodwinking the general public, and that is what is occurring in a matter of carbon dioxide relating to global warming.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Global Warming Fraud
Michael Mann is the father of the theory
that an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration leads to climate
change. He was a professor at the University of Virginia from 1999 to 2005,
during which time he developed his theory.
Kenneth Cuccinelli is a Virginia State Attorney General and a skeptic of Mann's climate-change theory.
On the basis that the University of Virginia is a public institution supported by taxpayer funds, Cuccinelli petitioned the University for access to Mann's research records. The University denied the request and the case went to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The Virginia Supreme Court supported the University's denial for access on the basis of a 2002 Virginia law, which disallows fraud investigations against individuals or businesses that receive state funds, including state agencies and public universities. That ended the case.
I see a strong similarity between the Cuccinelli case and the present attempts of Congress to obtain information on "Fast and Furious"
It is my experience that people hide things for only two reasons; either to avoid having them stolen or to perpetuate deceit.
Kenneth Cuccinelli is a Virginia State Attorney General and a skeptic of Mann's climate-change theory.
On the basis that the University of Virginia is a public institution supported by taxpayer funds, Cuccinelli petitioned the University for access to Mann's research records. The University denied the request and the case went to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The Virginia Supreme Court supported the University's denial for access on the basis of a 2002 Virginia law, which disallows fraud investigations against individuals or businesses that receive state funds, including state agencies and public universities. That ended the case.
I see a strong similarity between the Cuccinelli case and the present attempts of Congress to obtain information on "Fast and Furious"
It is my experience that people hide things for only two reasons; either to avoid having them stolen or to perpetuate deceit.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Carbon Credits - An Outgrowth of the Hoax
Amruthanand Nair's article entitled, "India Reaps Benefits of Carbon Program", in the June 18 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News, reviews the worldwide situation on carbon credits.
Carbon credits are an outgrowth of the international attempt to control carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, as a method to control world climate change. I have yet to see any data justifying the theory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has any significant effect on climate change.
Be that as it may, in 1997 an international meeting in Japan developed what is known as the "Kyoto Protocol". The basis of the Protocol was that too much carbon dioxide was being emitted to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and this was having a disastrous effect on climate change. In the discussion, it was agreed that the world should be divided into two segments; industrialized and developing. Examples of industrialized nations were France, Germany, UK, and the US. An example of a developing nation was India.
The protocol required that industrialized nations were required to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Developing nations were not required to do so. However, if a company in a developing nation reduced its carbon dioxide emissions, it could receive a carbon credit known as a "Certified Emission Reduction" (CER). Each CER was equivalent to 1000 tons of carbon dioxide. CERs could also be obtained by reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and trifluoromethane.
The CER's achieved monetary values, because they could be sold to companies in industrialized nations, which could then use them as an alternative to reducing their own carbon dioxide emissions. This was a particularly generous program for India, which with a few minor equipment changes could obtain CER's and sell them to companies in Western Europe. The initial trading value of a CER was $53. Price dropped to $12-$15 six months ago, and it is now less than $4. Some Indian companies reaped a gold mine, but it looks like the heyday is over.
It is interesting to speculate on why there was such a significant drop in CER value. We know that the recession in European Union countries has decreased factory production and related carbon dioxide emissions, which automatically reduces the need to purchase CER's from developing countries. I also speculate that another reason for the price reduction is the general public awareness that there is no basic scientific data which would indicate that carbon dioxide emissions lead to harmful climate change. This decreases the legitimacy of the Kyoto protocol. In fact, efforts to update it and make the terms more legally binding have failed. Hooray for common sense!
Carbon credits are an outgrowth of the international attempt to control carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, as a method to control world climate change. I have yet to see any data justifying the theory that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has any significant effect on climate change.
Be that as it may, in 1997 an international meeting in Japan developed what is known as the "Kyoto Protocol". The basis of the Protocol was that too much carbon dioxide was being emitted to the atmosphere through fossil fuel burning and this was having a disastrous effect on climate change. In the discussion, it was agreed that the world should be divided into two segments; industrialized and developing. Examples of industrialized nations were France, Germany, UK, and the US. An example of a developing nation was India.
The protocol required that industrialized nations were required to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. Developing nations were not required to do so. However, if a company in a developing nation reduced its carbon dioxide emissions, it could receive a carbon credit known as a "Certified Emission Reduction" (CER). Each CER was equivalent to 1000 tons of carbon dioxide. CERs could also be obtained by reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and trifluoromethane.
The CER's achieved monetary values, because they could be sold to companies in industrialized nations, which could then use them as an alternative to reducing their own carbon dioxide emissions. This was a particularly generous program for India, which with a few minor equipment changes could obtain CER's and sell them to companies in Western Europe. The initial trading value of a CER was $53. Price dropped to $12-$15 six months ago, and it is now less than $4. Some Indian companies reaped a gold mine, but it looks like the heyday is over.
It is interesting to speculate on why there was such a significant drop in CER value. We know that the recession in European Union countries has decreased factory production and related carbon dioxide emissions, which automatically reduces the need to purchase CER's from developing countries. I also speculate that another reason for the price reduction is the general public awareness that there is no basic scientific data which would indicate that carbon dioxide emissions lead to harmful climate change. This decreases the legitimacy of the Kyoto protocol. In fact, efforts to update it and make the terms more legally binding have failed. Hooray for common sense!
Friday, June 15, 2012
Debunking Global Warming Theory
Why would
anyone want to debunk a theory? Simply because following a false theory to an
extension of practicality may very well lead to disaster.
Does global warming exist? I don't know, but I will guess that it probably does. There is a lot of conflicting evidence on temperature taking at various locations, discussions of ice thickness, etc., but the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate there is some slight global warming in the recent past. Why?
My purpose here is not to discuss the pros and cons of global warming but rather to concentrate on the theory that any global warming is resulting from the man's activity. I am particularly interested in increased emission of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels, and now an increase in atmospheric methane concentration, through leakage natural gas wells.
Global Warming Theory says that the primary increase in global warming is caused by this increase in the atmospheric concentration of these two gases. To support the theory, the term Greenhouse Gas has been developed and needs to be understood.
The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says in its website (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html) that greenhouse gases allow direct sunlight to reach the Earth's surface unimpeded. As the short-wave energy heats the surface, heat is reradiated to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb this energy (heat), thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere. Another way to say this is that sunlight heats up your car and the heat cannot escape to interstellar space, because greenhouse gases block the escape.
I have no quarrel with this. Atmospheric gases do impede the escape of heat from a terrestrial body. For example, the moon has no gases and there are great extremes of temperature. Conversely, the greenhouse gases of the Earth equalize temperatures, so that the difference between day and night temperatures are not so great as to make the place unlivable.
What are these greenhouse gases? Since we know that Earth's atmosphere is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, with trace amounts of many other gases, it's a fair assumption that the greenhouse gas of Earth is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen.
However, the Global Warming Theory enthusiasts are not satisfied with the obvious. For whatever reasons they may have, they desire to complicate the issue by attributing a special effect of higher global warming to the presence of the trace gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane.
The special effects are further defined by a mathematical term for Global Warming Potential. The equation is attached. If you look at it, don't be intimidated. Notice that there is a term for an investigated gas in the numerator and an equivalent term for carbon dioxide in the denominator. All this says is that we calculate the Global Warming Potential of any gas in relation to carbon dioxide. The assumption is that carbon dioxide is bad. It also says nothing about Global Warming EFFECTS. In other words it says nothing about how much nitrogen or oxygen contribute to the greenhouse effect of stabilizing temperatures, nor does it consider carbon dioxide and methane for that same activity.
A little common sense tells you that in order for anything to have an effect on something else, it has to be present. If it's not there, it cannot have an effect. A reasonable extension of this thought that the more a substance is present, the greater will be its effect. Example, a glass of whiskey at 70% alcohol contains more alcohol than a glass of wine at 20% alcohol. The glass of whiskey will go farther toward inebriation than the glass of wine.
Therefore, it stands to reason that because of the high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, those gases will likely have a much greater effect on temperature equalization of the earth than will any trace gases. The only way this could not be true is if the trace gases have a very special attribute compared to nitrogen and oxygen. We are already seeing that the Global Warming Potential Equation does not address this possibility.
Advocates of global warming increase caused by man-generated increases in carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere have developed another equation. The equation for Radiative Forcing Capacity (RF) is also attached. Again, do not be intimidated by the equation. The only term of significance that it contains is the infrared absorption of the gas being considered. That is, how much heat can a gas hold? Well, good! At least we have something that starts to concern the practical aspects of the atmosphere. We can calculate the RF of nitrogen, oxygen or any gas, but no one seems to have done that.
But we also must return to common sense. While one gas may be able to hold more heat than another gas, it is obvious that the amount of gas present is an important factor. In other words, we must consider gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Let's compare the heats that could be held in the atmosphere by nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Let's take million parts of atmospheric gas. Of that total there are 790,000 parts of nitrogen. Making up a number, let's also say that each part of nitrogen can hold 1 calorie of heat. The content then for the nitrogen is 790,000 calories. Doing the same thing with carbon dioxide, there are 350 parts in the million parts of atmospheric gas. Let's also say that a part of carbon dioxide can hold twice as much heat as nitrogen. That would be 2 calories per part. With the 350 parts of carbon dioxide at 2 calories per part, the total heat content of the carbon dioxide would be 700 calories. Notice that the content of the carbon dioxide is only 0.08% of that held by the nitrogen. Not much effect. Let's also say that perhaps the carbon dioxide can hold 100 times more heat than the nitrogen. It's heat content would then be 4%. Still only borderline with respect to effectiveness, and we haven't even yet considered that the presence of oxygen would also bring that value down. We then also have to ask ourselves whether it is even reasonable that one part of carbon dioxide could be 100 times more effective in holding heat than one part of nitrogen. But these are calculations that actually could be made using the RF equation.
Some have said there could be huge differences in the RF's of various gases. They have likened the action of heat without light, which is a reasonable comparison. When light strikes the surface, it can be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected. Usually all three actions occur, but in different amounts depending upon the object which the light strikes. For example, when light strikes glass, a large portion of it is transmitted. If light strikes a black object, a large portion of the light is absorbed. And if light strikes a reflective surface, such as a shiny metal, a large portion will be reflected. But notice that in order to have these large differences, we had to materially change the nature of the object being struck by light. In the atmosphere, we don't have these large differences. All components are gases. True. Some have two items per molecule, such as nitrogen and oxygen. Some have three atoms per molecule, such as carbon dioxide. And, some have four atoms per molecule, such as methane.
However, we do have some real data on heat transmission through various gases, which is exactly our case in greenhouse gas considerations. Thermal conductivity is the rate at which heat can pass through a substance. The Gas Encyclopedia by Air Liquide (http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp) gives thermal conductivity for many pure gases. Thermal conductivities for both nitrogen and oxygen are about 24. For carbon dioxide, it is 14 and for methane 32. Since the higher the thermal conductivity, the less heat is being absorbed by a gas, it is apparent that carbon dioxide absorbs more heat than nitrogen and oxygen. Conversely, methane absorbs less heat. Another important factor is the ratio of the numbers. If we take carbon dioxide, it is 1.7 times more effective than nitrogen in absorbing heat. Notice that we said earlier that if carbon dioxide would be twice as effective as nitrogen in heat holding, the mere fact that there's so little of it would make a heat absorption difference in the atmosphere of only 0.08%.
For strong believers that any observed global warming is caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration through burning fossil fuels, I hope that the above presentation has shed a little doubt on that presumption. At least, I feel that considering heat absorption of major atmospheric gases, rather than considering only trace gases, is a realistic approach to determining total heat effects related to greenhouse gases and global warming.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential
Does global warming exist? I don't know, but I will guess that it probably does. There is a lot of conflicting evidence on temperature taking at various locations, discussions of ice thickness, etc., but the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate there is some slight global warming in the recent past. Why?
My purpose here is not to discuss the pros and cons of global warming but rather to concentrate on the theory that any global warming is resulting from the man's activity. I am particularly interested in increased emission of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels, and now an increase in atmospheric methane concentration, through leakage natural gas wells.
Global Warming Theory says that the primary increase in global warming is caused by this increase in the atmospheric concentration of these two gases. To support the theory, the term Greenhouse Gas has been developed and needs to be understood.
The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says in its website (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html) that greenhouse gases allow direct sunlight to reach the Earth's surface unimpeded. As the short-wave energy heats the surface, heat is reradiated to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb this energy (heat), thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere. Another way to say this is that sunlight heats up your car and the heat cannot escape to interstellar space, because greenhouse gases block the escape.
I have no quarrel with this. Atmospheric gases do impede the escape of heat from a terrestrial body. For example, the moon has no gases and there are great extremes of temperature. Conversely, the greenhouse gases of the Earth equalize temperatures, so that the difference between day and night temperatures are not so great as to make the place unlivable.
What are these greenhouse gases? Since we know that Earth's atmosphere is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, with trace amounts of many other gases, it's a fair assumption that the greenhouse gas of Earth is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen.
However, the Global Warming Theory enthusiasts are not satisfied with the obvious. For whatever reasons they may have, they desire to complicate the issue by attributing a special effect of higher global warming to the presence of the trace gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane.
The special effects are further defined by a mathematical term for Global Warming Potential. The equation is attached. If you look at it, don't be intimidated. Notice that there is a term for an investigated gas in the numerator and an equivalent term for carbon dioxide in the denominator. All this says is that we calculate the Global Warming Potential of any gas in relation to carbon dioxide. The assumption is that carbon dioxide is bad. It also says nothing about Global Warming EFFECTS. In other words it says nothing about how much nitrogen or oxygen contribute to the greenhouse effect of stabilizing temperatures, nor does it consider carbon dioxide and methane for that same activity.
A little common sense tells you that in order for anything to have an effect on something else, it has to be present. If it's not there, it cannot have an effect. A reasonable extension of this thought that the more a substance is present, the greater will be its effect. Example, a glass of whiskey at 70% alcohol contains more alcohol than a glass of wine at 20% alcohol. The glass of whiskey will go farther toward inebriation than the glass of wine.
Therefore, it stands to reason that because of the high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, those gases will likely have a much greater effect on temperature equalization of the earth than will any trace gases. The only way this could not be true is if the trace gases have a very special attribute compared to nitrogen and oxygen. We are already seeing that the Global Warming Potential Equation does not address this possibility.
Advocates of global warming increase caused by man-generated increases in carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere have developed another equation. The equation for Radiative Forcing Capacity (RF) is also attached. Again, do not be intimidated by the equation. The only term of significance that it contains is the infrared absorption of the gas being considered. That is, how much heat can a gas hold? Well, good! At least we have something that starts to concern the practical aspects of the atmosphere. We can calculate the RF of nitrogen, oxygen or any gas, but no one seems to have done that.
But we also must return to common sense. While one gas may be able to hold more heat than another gas, it is obvious that the amount of gas present is an important factor. In other words, we must consider gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Let's compare the heats that could be held in the atmosphere by nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Let's take million parts of atmospheric gas. Of that total there are 790,000 parts of nitrogen. Making up a number, let's also say that each part of nitrogen can hold 1 calorie of heat. The content then for the nitrogen is 790,000 calories. Doing the same thing with carbon dioxide, there are 350 parts in the million parts of atmospheric gas. Let's also say that a part of carbon dioxide can hold twice as much heat as nitrogen. That would be 2 calories per part. With the 350 parts of carbon dioxide at 2 calories per part, the total heat content of the carbon dioxide would be 700 calories. Notice that the content of the carbon dioxide is only 0.08% of that held by the nitrogen. Not much effect. Let's also say that perhaps the carbon dioxide can hold 100 times more heat than the nitrogen. It's heat content would then be 4%. Still only borderline with respect to effectiveness, and we haven't even yet considered that the presence of oxygen would also bring that value down. We then also have to ask ourselves whether it is even reasonable that one part of carbon dioxide could be 100 times more effective in holding heat than one part of nitrogen. But these are calculations that actually could be made using the RF equation.
Some have said there could be huge differences in the RF's of various gases. They have likened the action of heat without light, which is a reasonable comparison. When light strikes the surface, it can be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected. Usually all three actions occur, but in different amounts depending upon the object which the light strikes. For example, when light strikes glass, a large portion of it is transmitted. If light strikes a black object, a large portion of the light is absorbed. And if light strikes a reflective surface, such as a shiny metal, a large portion will be reflected. But notice that in order to have these large differences, we had to materially change the nature of the object being struck by light. In the atmosphere, we don't have these large differences. All components are gases. True. Some have two items per molecule, such as nitrogen and oxygen. Some have three atoms per molecule, such as carbon dioxide. And, some have four atoms per molecule, such as methane.
However, we do have some real data on heat transmission through various gases, which is exactly our case in greenhouse gas considerations. Thermal conductivity is the rate at which heat can pass through a substance. The Gas Encyclopedia by Air Liquide (http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp) gives thermal conductivity for many pure gases. Thermal conductivities for both nitrogen and oxygen are about 24. For carbon dioxide, it is 14 and for methane 32. Since the higher the thermal conductivity, the less heat is being absorbed by a gas, it is apparent that carbon dioxide absorbs more heat than nitrogen and oxygen. Conversely, methane absorbs less heat. Another important factor is the ratio of the numbers. If we take carbon dioxide, it is 1.7 times more effective than nitrogen in absorbing heat. Notice that we said earlier that if carbon dioxide would be twice as effective as nitrogen in heat holding, the mere fact that there's so little of it would make a heat absorption difference in the atmosphere of only 0.08%.
For strong believers that any observed global warming is caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration through burning fossil fuels, I hope that the above presentation has shed a little doubt on that presumption. At least, I feel that considering heat absorption of major atmospheric gases, rather than considering only trace gases, is a realistic approach to determining total heat effects related to greenhouse gases and global warming.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential
Carbon DioxCheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "CO2 Emissions", in the June 4 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News. In the article, she reviews a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA report indicates that last year the carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere increased 3.2% compared to the year before. It then goes on to say that China was a major contributor, while the United States actually decreased its carbon dioxide emissions. Since atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to global warming, there is no relevancy of this data to any discussion on global warming.ide in the Atmosphere
Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled, "CO2 Emissions", in the June 4 Issue of Chemical and Engineering News.
In the article, she reviews a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA report indicates that last year the carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere increased 3.2% compared to the year before. It then goes on to say that China was a major contributor, while the United States actually decreased its carbon dioxide emissions.
Since atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to global warming, there is no relevancy of this data to any discussion on global warming.
In the article, she reviews a report by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA report indicates that last year the carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere increased 3.2% compared to the year before. It then goes on to say that China was a major contributor, while the United States actually decreased its carbon dioxide emissions.
Since atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a significant contributor to global warming, there is no relevancy of this data to any discussion on global warming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
