In the early use of refrigeration, the process used ammonia and sulfur dioxide, for compression and decompression to obtain cooling. These gases were somewhat obnoxious and were subsequently replaced by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). However, someone later developed the theory that CFCs were reacting with ozone in the upper stratosphere and it was necessary to preserve the ozone as a protective barrier to damaging radiation from the sun at the Earth's surface. We will not now discuss the merits of this theory, but it led to modification of the CFCs, with the intention of using gases less reactive to ozone. These modified gases are now being criticized as contributing to global warming. See Cheryl Hogue's article in the December 5 issue of C&E News.
As is usual with most problems, a mathematical analysis usually brings the problem into perspective, with respect to its significance. Let's do this with refrigerants to determine whether their contribution to global warming is significant.
The weight of the Earth's atmosphere, which is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, is estimated to be 5.5x10 E 21 grams. The "E 21" means there are 21 zeros following the 5.5. The molecular weight of air is approximately 30 g per mole. Therefore, the number of moles of air in the atmosphere is 5.5x10 E 21 divided by 30, or about 2x10 E 20.
A mole of any substance is made up of 6x10 E 23 molecules. Therefore, the number of molecules of air in the atmosphere is 2x10 E 30 times 6x10 E 23, or about 1x10 E 44.
In 1991, usage of CFCs for refrigeration and blowing agents was 6.8x10 E 11 grams. Assume the worst-case for the atmosphere, which is that all the CFCs entered the atmosphere. The molecular weight of the most common CFC (dichlorodifluoromethane) is 120. Therefore, the number of moles of CFC entering the atmosphere was 6.8x10 E 11 divided by 120, or about 6x10 E 9. Again converting to numbers of molecules, 6x10 E9 times 6x10 E 23 gives 36x10 E 32, or 3.6x10 E 33.
We now divide the number of air molecules in the atmosphere by the number of CFC molecules entering the atmosphere in 1991. 1x10 E 44 divided by 3.6x10 E. 33 gives about 1x10 E 11. In other words, there were 100 trillion times more air molecules then CFC molecules in the atmosphere in 1991.
The theory of global warming is that some molecules are greater reflectors of heat than others. The global warming effect is said to occur by those molecules not allowing heat to escape from the Earth's surface.
Assume the worst-case scenario. That is, molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere allow complete passage of heat from the earth's surface to interstellar space, while molecules of CFC completely block this passage of heat.
Let us now also make an analogy that we have a net containing 100 trillion holes (pretty big net!). One of the holes is completely blocked. Is that enough to have any significant effect on what passes through all the remaining holes?
Friday, December 9, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Considering the Nitrogen Cycle for Weather Control Was Inconclusive
In the October 3rd issue C&E News, there is a nicely reported article by Rick Erickson. It is reported that at the August meeting of the American Chemical Society in Denver the group came to grips with how to incorporate the nitrogen cycle into future climate-change models and policies.
For those not familiar with the nitrogen cycle, it involves a very small portion of the 78% nitrogen in the atmosphere. The cycle involves bacteria converting small amounts of this nitrogen into chemical compounds which are used by plants to facilitate growth. When the plants die, other bacteria convert the chemical compounds back into atmospheric nitrogen.
The ACS group has extended the standard nitrogen cycle to include nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. I'm not sure how they came about this rationalization. However, there's no doubt that very small concentration of these chemical compounds do exist in the atmosphere. The origin may be from actions of lightning and some release to the air by bacteria.
There was the usual mishmash of opinions at the ACS meeting. Some claimed advantages for each of the chemical constituents, while others claimed disadvantages for the same constituent. As expected, the overall conclusion was inconclusive, in regard to any of their effects on weather.
The group discussion involved so much minuscule inflammation, that it appears the main aspects were completely ignored. With respect to global warming, these three constituents contribute parts per million concentrations to the total atmosphere. Since global warming is primarily a matter of the effectiveness of the gas in allowing passage of incoming solar radiation versus restricting heat radiation into the atmosphere, such low concentrations are bound to be insignificant. Perhaps they have some sort of magical powers, yet to be determined.
The bottom line is good news. All of this confusion tends to throw cold water on any attempts to control weather, which would be disastrous in this already weak economy.
For those not familiar with the nitrogen cycle, it involves a very small portion of the 78% nitrogen in the atmosphere. The cycle involves bacteria converting small amounts of this nitrogen into chemical compounds which are used by plants to facilitate growth. When the plants die, other bacteria convert the chemical compounds back into atmospheric nitrogen.
The ACS group has extended the standard nitrogen cycle to include nitrogen oxides, ammonia, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere. I'm not sure how they came about this rationalization. However, there's no doubt that very small concentration of these chemical compounds do exist in the atmosphere. The origin may be from actions of lightning and some release to the air by bacteria.
There was the usual mishmash of opinions at the ACS meeting. Some claimed advantages for each of the chemical constituents, while others claimed disadvantages for the same constituent. As expected, the overall conclusion was inconclusive, in regard to any of their effects on weather.
The group discussion involved so much minuscule inflammation, that it appears the main aspects were completely ignored. With respect to global warming, these three constituents contribute parts per million concentrations to the total atmosphere. Since global warming is primarily a matter of the effectiveness of the gas in allowing passage of incoming solar radiation versus restricting heat radiation into the atmosphere, such low concentrations are bound to be insignificant. Perhaps they have some sort of magical powers, yet to be determined.
The bottom line is good news. All of this confusion tends to throw cold water on any attempts to control weather, which would be disastrous in this already weak economy.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Another Great Delay in Curbing CO2 Emissions
In the September 26 issue C&E News, there is an excellent article entitled, "EPA Stalls on CO2 Rule s". Quoting from the article, "EPA has backtracked from its scheduled release of rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electric utilities. Instead EPA said in a statement it will issue the proposal "soon"."
This is good news, but the best news would be that EPA would give up this proposal altogether. Trying to control CO2 emissions from power plants would be a disastrous undertaking in view of the tremendous cost and the obvious fact that it would be completely unnecessary. There has been no information that CO2 has had any detrimental effect on our health, economy and particularly climate. All negativity has been speculation.
This is good news, but the best news would be that EPA would give up this proposal altogether. Trying to control CO2 emissions from power plants would be a disastrous undertaking in view of the tremendous cost and the obvious fact that it would be completely unnecessary. There has been no information that CO2 has had any detrimental effect on our health, economy and particularly climate. All negativity has been speculation.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
The Department Of Energy (DOE) Unjustly Criticizes CO2 Emissions
The September 5 issue of C&E News has an article entitled, "Greenhouse Gas Versus the Economy". The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that the first time in more than 20 years, CO2 emissions grew more than the GDP did last year. The article says that the EIA is an independent agency in the Department Of Energy (DOE). Since they all work for Obama how can they be independent?
Therefore, I have no conviction that these figures are even relevant.
I haven't had any difficulty breathing with the increased CO2 in the air. I haven't noticed that there is a considerable increase in plant growth from the increased CO2 concentrations, but some biologists claim that there is.
Mostly, the article is intended to reflect on climate change in a very negative way. However, I repeat again that no correlation has been found between CO2 concentration and negative climate change. Greenhouse gases do exist. They include nitrogen and oxygen, which are the majority concentrations in the atmosphere, and the increased concentrations of CO2 are insignificant.
Therefore, I have no conviction that these figures are even relevant.
I haven't had any difficulty breathing with the increased CO2 in the air. I haven't noticed that there is a considerable increase in plant growth from the increased CO2 concentrations, but some biologists claim that there is.
Mostly, the article is intended to reflect on climate change in a very negative way. However, I repeat again that no correlation has been found between CO2 concentration and negative climate change. Greenhouse gases do exist. They include nitrogen and oxygen, which are the majority concentrations in the atmosphere, and the increased concentrations of CO2 are insignificant.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
The Idea of Controlling Climate through CO2 Emissions Is Dying
In the August 8 issue of C&E News, Cheryl Hogue has an article entitled "Commitments are Running Out". The subtitle is "Possibilities For New Global Climate Treaty Are Slim", which is good news.
The Kyoto Accord to reduce CO2 emissions is about to expire. The 37 countries involved have continued discussions. A proposed binding agreement in December 2009 Copenhagen failed. The next meeting is scheduled for Durban, South Africa. Havercamp, a director of an environmental group says that the Durban Meeting will probably not be able to achieve really significant commitments to global emissions. The reason given is that there is lack of US action, because of an uncooperative Congress. Hooray for the U.S. Congress, they're finally doing something right.
I am not denying that there is a phenomenon of climate change. Climate always changes. The question is whether destroying the economic integrity of the United States by CO2 emission control, on a weak supposition that it will have a positive effect, is not justifiable.
The Kyoto Accord to reduce CO2 emissions is about to expire. The 37 countries involved have continued discussions. A proposed binding agreement in December 2009 Copenhagen failed. The next meeting is scheduled for Durban, South Africa. Havercamp, a director of an environmental group says that the Durban Meeting will probably not be able to achieve really significant commitments to global emissions. The reason given is that there is lack of US action, because of an uncooperative Congress. Hooray for the U.S. Congress, they're finally doing something right.
I am not denying that there is a phenomenon of climate change. Climate always changes. The question is whether destroying the economic integrity of the United States by CO2 emission control, on a weak supposition that it will have a positive effect, is not justifiable.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Rep. Neugebauer's Position on CO2/Climate Change
Rep. Neugebauer was previously asked for his position concerning the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and climate change. I have had a personal response from one of the Randy's staff members. She says they are working on a revision of their CO2/climate change form letter.
Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from one of the presently available form letters:
"I am pleased to inform you that I have already co-sponsored and voted for legislation that constrains the EPA’s ill-advised regulations. For example, I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011. This bill would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under the Clean Air Act. It would also block the Agency’s attempt to extend an unprecedented level of control over vast sectors of the U.S. economy through unilateral regulation of GHGs, which amounts to a massive energy tax on all Americans. I also recently voted in support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which closes a loophole that previously enabled the EPA to deny permits for exploratory offshore drilling on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. For five years, the EPA had been using the Clean Air Act as justification to deny permits and had created an unnecessary, job-killing moratorium on development in the Arctic, even after President Obama’s Oil Spill Commission determined that the moratorium was unjustified. H.R. 2021 passed the House by a vote of 253 to 166 on June 22, 2011.
Please rest assured that I will do everything I can to keep the EPA in line."
With this above section, I'm convinced Randy is on the right track. However, the problem I see is that even with the House passing these bills, nothing becomes effective until the Senate also agrees and Obama signs them into law, which is highly unlikely. I think Randy and other House members must take a more innovative approach. Obama is already using one of them in that by Legislative Order he can circumvent anything from Congress. While this is a dictatorial technique, which should not be part of our government, it apparently exists and is effective in destroying our economy and establishing a Communistic/Socialistic state. I don't know how this can be stopped. Obama has already done a tremendous amount of damage to our economy and the country as a whole. I shudder to think of what else he can do in the more than one year he has left as term in office.
I wonder if Congress can sue in the Supreme Court that the Administration must conduct or decease certain actions.
Meanwhile, here is an excerpt from one of the presently available form letters:
"I am pleased to inform you that I have already co-sponsored and voted for legislation that constrains the EPA’s ill-advised regulations. For example, I cosponsored and voted in favor of H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which passed the House by a vote of 255-172 on April 7, 2011. This bill would prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) under the Clean Air Act. It would also block the Agency’s attempt to extend an unprecedented level of control over vast sectors of the U.S. economy through unilateral regulation of GHGs, which amounts to a massive energy tax on all Americans. I also recently voted in support of H.R. 2021, the Jobs and Energy Permitting Act, which closes a loophole that previously enabled the EPA to deny permits for exploratory offshore drilling on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. For five years, the EPA had been using the Clean Air Act as justification to deny permits and had created an unnecessary, job-killing moratorium on development in the Arctic, even after President Obama’s Oil Spill Commission determined that the moratorium was unjustified. H.R. 2021 passed the House by a vote of 253 to 166 on June 22, 2011.
Please rest assured that I will do everything I can to keep the EPA in line."
With this above section, I'm convinced Randy is on the right track. However, the problem I see is that even with the House passing these bills, nothing becomes effective until the Senate also agrees and Obama signs them into law, which is highly unlikely. I think Randy and other House members must take a more innovative approach. Obama is already using one of them in that by Legislative Order he can circumvent anything from Congress. While this is a dictatorial technique, which should not be part of our government, it apparently exists and is effective in destroying our economy and establishing a Communistic/Socialistic state. I don't know how this can be stopped. Obama has already done a tremendous amount of damage to our economy and the country as a whole. I shudder to think of what else he can do in the more than one year he has left as term in office.
I wonder if Congress can sue in the Supreme Court that the Administration must conduct or decease certain actions.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change
Randy,
I have received from one of my political advisers a message concerning your opinion on the subject of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and possible effect on climate change. My associate has already described the question better than I can.
Here is what he had to say, "Have you asked Randy for a yes or no answer to whether he agrees that carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate change? He can either say yes, no, or equivocate (or not respond). If no, encourage him to educate other members of Congress. If yes, challenge him to provide some scientific evidence ) which, of course, he cannot. If he equivocates, chide him for being ignorant or more interested in politics than the welfare of our Republic. If he does not respond, keep asking him again and again, and, finally,
include local letters to the editor of how remiss he is in his responsibilities as a Representative."
May I have your response, either direct or by form letter?
I have received from one of my political advisers a message concerning your opinion on the subject of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and possible effect on climate change. My associate has already described the question better than I can.
Here is what he had to say, "Have you asked Randy for a yes or no answer to whether he agrees that carbon dioxide has a significant effect on climate change? He can either say yes, no, or equivocate (or not respond). If no, encourage him to educate other members of Congress. If yes, challenge him to provide some scientific evidence ) which, of course, he cannot. If he equivocates, chide him for being ignorant or more interested in politics than the welfare of our Republic. If he does not respond, keep asking him again and again, and, finally,
include local letters to the editor of how remiss he is in his responsibilities as a Representative."
May I have your response, either direct or by form letter?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
