Polar Bears in the Hot Tub – Antarctic Ice – No Bears Chapter 6

Environmental Scientists are very concerned about the immense amount of ice contained on the very large Antarctica continent. Picture a block of ice two miles thick and one and 1/2 times as large as the United States.

Should all the ice melt and flow into the oceans, scientists calculate sea levels would rise 216 feet. Since most of humanity lives near ocean shores, mass migration to higher land would be required and it would be catastrophic.

Major action is already being taken in the United States to prepare for rising sea levels.

  •      Ocean front cities are preparing for higher shore erosion.   Ocean front planning commissions are requiring new projects to raise the site by adding fill dirt, as much as six feet, before     building new construction.
  •      The US Navy is planning for new harbors as existing Navy yards become flooded.
  •      States bordering the ocean are projecting sea rises and spending money  planning for major projects and major expenses.
  •      States, California included, are mandating sustainable cities and ‘green’ energy to halt global warming.

These are all life changing mandates and very disruptive and expensive.

  • What if ice is actually returning to the Arctic?
  • There is daily data at:    “charctic interactive Sea Ice Graph”.
  • Take time to select the recent years 2012, 2015, 2016 and 2017;
  •  note each year has more summer ice than 2012.  How can that be if CO2 which is increasing causes ice to melt??
  • What if ice is actually increasing on the large East Antarctica to offset any loss in the West?
  • What if we have actually already entered the next ice age?
  • What would weather be like during a descent into an ice age?
  • Would we not see more winter snow, and heavy summer rain?
  • Would we stop calling it “severe weather caused by climate warming”?
  • What if all this effort and expense is unnecessary, wasteful and actually harmful?
  • What if all the effort to reduce atmospheric CO2 is pure waste of time and money?

Our search for answers is not about whether temperatures have increased since 1980.  Temperature has probably increased.

Nor is our search for reasons about the melting of Arctic Ice between the years of 2000 and 2012.  The measurements of temperature and ice area may be assumed to be correct for that short period of melting ice.

Nor is there doubt about the very rapid increases in CO2 concentration since 1990.

What is this chapter about?  Actually?

  • Why has the temperature, as reported by NOAA, increased by 10 to 15 deg. F along the Antarctic Peninsula but  other areas rose only about 1.5 degrees.
  • Why has the ice melted on only two mountain glaciers on West Antarctic?
  • Why are there about 127 known volcanoes along West Antarcticas’ coast but only one in all of vast East Antarctica?
  • Why are there visible cracks in the West Antarctica ice shelves that are melting?
  • If it is melting from warmer air, engineering calculations predict cracks on the bottom of the ice which would not be visible from above, but if from warm water beneath the ice, the cracks would occur and be visible from above; as they are.

Lets begin with a map of Antarctica. Then check out a list of volcanoes.

 antarctic Map

Notes for the Map of Antarctica:

  1.  The black wavy line follows a mountain range that divides East and West Antarctica.
  2.  East Antarctica (the larger area) is to the right, West Antarctica is to your left.
  3.  Antarctica’s Peninsula extends up from West Antarctica toward Chile.
  4.  Two bays contain major ice shelfs; the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ronne Ice Shelf.
  5. The red dots locate 36 volcanoes which are listed on graph at the end of the Chapter 6.
  6. Mount Erebus on West Antarctica is actively emitting gas and steam; others are not erupting.
  7.  Four other volcanoes on West Antarctica, erupted in 1876, 1892, 1905 and 1970.
  8.  East Antarctica, in contrast, has a single dormant volcano located 300 miles offshore.




Penguins, over 10 million of them, choose Antarctica as their home.

Researchers are concerned about the future of these excellent swimmers.

There are 70 research stations studying and reporting on penguins, climate and ice.

The concern originated with rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures.

Antarctica has totally baffling questions if CO2 is assumed to cause both rising temperature and melting ice.

But first, some facts about Antarctica, the “Down Under Continent”.

  1.  While North Pole regions have thousands of polar bears none exist on Antarctica.
  2.  Mammals, in fact, do not live on the continent.
  3.  At 5.4 million sq. miles it is almost twice as large as the United States’ 3 million sq. miles.
  4.  East Antarctica is much larger (72% of Antarctica’s’ area) and reported to be gaining ice.
  5.   West Antarctica, 18% of the area, has numerous volcanoes and is the only area of alarm.
  6.  Antarctica is a continent resting on rock, while most of Arctic Ice floats on sea water.
  7.  Under the snow lies rocky mountains and a mountain range dividing the continent.
  8.  Snow and ice depth over the continent ranges up to 2 miles thick.
  9.  Calculations have been made to indicate seas would rise 216 feet if all the ice melted.
  10.  Shelfs of  West Antarcticas’ sea ice are reported to be melting.
  11.  Ice cores reveal over 1.5 million years of history ( CO2, sea level and air temperature).
  12.   National Geographic’s Dec, 2015 map of air temperature changes, show air temperature DECREASES of up to 5 degrees over some sea areas surrounding Antarctica.

This map also shows a 3 degree F increase offshore of West Antarctica, while the air temperature rise over snow covered eastern area is about 1.5 degrees F, similar to the entire planet.


1 The Pacific Ocean is surrounded by a “Ring Of Fire”.

2 Location of the Ring is well established:

–   90% of the worlds earthquakes occur on the Ring.

–   75 % of the worlds active volcanoes are located on the Ring of Fire.

–  Three of the world’s largest recent eruptions occurred on the Ring of Fire.

3 The Ring extends south along Chiles’ west coast to West Antarctica’s Peninsula and then farther southward offshore of West Antarctica before turning northward toward New Zealand.

This chain of volcanoes and magma along West Antarctica’s shore is 3600 miles long but width is not known; a width of 100 miles would provide 360,000 square miles of hot seabed.

For comparison, Los Angeles to New York is only 2500 miles;

4 There is one active and 35 inactive volcanoes on the peninsula and shore of West Antarctica.

One inactive volcano is located 400 miles off the coast of East Antarctica. (66°48’S,89°11’E)

5 The volcanoes were created by hot magma which still exists beneath them.


1 West Antarctica is shown by the National Geographic map to now have 3 degrees higher air temperature than 54 years ago; the rest of Antarctica has risen 1 degree or less. Ocean areas around Antarctica are shown to have cooled as much as 5° degrees Fahrenheit.

2 Ice shelfs and glacier are melting in the Western Antarctica region.

3 Volcanoes are shown on a map of Antarctica by dark dots. See page 11.

Note that most lie off the west shore of West Antarctica under sea ice.

A table is attached listing all the volcanoes located in Antarctica. See Page 12.

4 Sea rise would be minimal from melting ice; ice shelfs are floating, Coastal ice is minimal.

5 While there is not sufficient data to calculate the amount of ice the magma might melt, science cannot be “settled” until data is available and able to predict melting ice shelfs.

6 Melting of land-supported ice would cause sea levels to rise but cannot happen without volcanoes.

7 East Antarctica has been gaining ice in spite of 400 ppm CO2 concentrations.

East Antarctica does not have a source of heat below the ice to cause melting.

This vast area is very unlikely to begin melting any time soon.

8 West Antarctica’s chain of magma and volcanoes along the shore causes floating ice to melt, but will not cause sea levels to rise.

The amount that melts will be determined by magma and volcanic activity, not CO2 concentration.

9 Since only offshore ice is affected by the magma and volcanoes, there will not be enough melted ice to raise sea levels significantly.

10 Further, the net change appears to be an increase in ice.

Ice increases in East Antarctica has been offsetting any loss in West Antarctica.

Volcano List

List of Antarctic Volcanoes


The topic for this chapter is still being researched.

It was sparked by a discussion with Robert J Tuttle about his book;

The Fourth Source;  Effects of Natural Nuclear Reactors.



Jet Planes were very exotic in 1950 and still glamorous in the 60’s.  Propeller planes were already using turbine engines rather than piston engines.

I moved my family in 1966 to live under the jet plane approach to Los Angeles Airport.  We lived in that house for over 50 years.  We often watched in awe as planes from the east flew overhead with flaps and wheels down and engines whining as they flew on to land at LAX 20 miles away.  Others, arriving from the west made U-turns overhead to enter the flight path.  Their elevation at our house was probably  2 to 4,000 feet above us.

There was a darker side to the glamour however.  A white paper towel would turn black when wiped over a counter.  Each day, counter tops which appeared clean, were re-coated with black soot which settled from the exhaust.  The particles are extremely small – not visible even with the most powerful optical microscopes.  A single particle is not visible under an optical microscope and a clump looks like black paint. Powerful electron microscopes are necessary and particles must be pre-coated with a gold film in order to be filmed.  I paid two inspection laboratories with electron microscopes, to provide pictures of my samples of soot; both failed.  The second one assured me after their attempt failed, that their microscope could photograph particles as small as 2 to 3 nanometers if they prepared the samples by coating them first with gold and then scanning for several hours; the cost would be over a thousand dollars per image with no guarantee for success of any one image.  I postponed the opportunity to spend thousands of dollars of savings on the possibility of seeing a photo or two.

With that much soot, I was concerned about the health effects on my family and residents inhaling the soot for over 50 years ?

There was nothing notable in the 14 adults or their 15 children who grew up in this immediate area.  No asthma, no missed work or missed school days or any illness.  No pulmonary issues. Medical reports claiming serious medical problems from fine particulate soot should be scrutinized very carefully for other vectors.

How is this jet engine soot formed?

Picture in your mind, jet fuel burning in one of the several combustion chambers of a jet engine.  It is a microscopic world.

Jet fuel is injected at great pressure,  20,000 to 25,000 psi, through small nozzles to “atomize” the fuel into droplets. Higher pressures create smaller size drops.  Current development of higher pressure pumps and nozzles claim particles so small no soot is formed.  Size of droplets in current engines is very small, almost like the dust we see floating in a shaft of sunlight in our houses. Each small droplet enters a white hot radiant chamber along with compressed air.

The outer layer of this miniature oil droplet starts to boil immediately – and starts burning – creating an inert shell of CO2 and water vapor around the droplet.  This inert shell is a barrier to oxygen reaching the droplet and impedes further burning.  The inert shell becomes thicker around the ever smaller droplet. It is so small it floats with the current, not burning completely, but cracking into carbon and hydrogen.  Hydrogen gas created by cracking burns readily, but the carbon does not and leaves the engine as an extremely small particle; probably not round and sometimes clustered with other small particles like a small bunch of grapes.

This means that very nearly every droplet of oil creates at least one carbon particle, and most will leave the engine unburned.  As stated earlier, 2 million to 3 million particles have been measured in single cubic centimeters of jet engine exhaust.   Jet engine fuel creates an exhaust that is lighter than air due to the water vapor formed from burning hydrogen.  It rises even higher than the 40,000 foot elevation of cruising jet planes.

While carbon particles are heavier than air, they are actually very light and very small.  The hot mix of CO2, water vapor, nitrogen and carbon particles is lighter than air and floats upward.  The study of jet engine exhaust reported soot particle diameters between 2 and 60 nanometers;  (equal to 0.000000002 to 0.000000060 inches in diameter).  From 40,000 feet, they have 7 to 8 miles to settle before reaching earth.  Rather than settle, they flow toward the poles with atmospheric currents at 40,000 feet.  The diagram from Chapter 4 is repeated below.

Air currents north of the equator, where planes are shown flying in the diagram, must carry much of the soot northward toward Greenland and the North Pole.

Exhaust from piston engines on the ground was shown to also be lighter than air and rises carrying the soot upward to join the jet plane soot.

What problems does this soot cause?  Actually two problems!

The first problem.  Even while nanoparticles are floating, they are a black solid that absorbs nearly all sunlight that strikes each of the untold millions of particles. Heat   They will get hotter.  Heat transfer dictates that temperature of the particle is increased by sunlight and that air in contact with those particles is also heated.

Jet engines burn 6,000,000 barrels of oil a day.  A barrel of fuel weighs 450 impede;  that amounts to 2,700,000,000 lbs of fuel a day (2.7 billion lbs.) and a near infinite number of particles.

Scientists have tried to calculate the impact of this carbon on global warming.  One four year study, a 232 page report in the Journal of Geophysical Research, January 2013,  (e360yale.edu) is summarized by Carl Zimmer, January 17, 2013.

The report estimates that carbon soot can cause more warming than that attributed to the CO2  blanket;  1.1 watts minimum to 2.1 watts vs the 1.56 watts attributed to CO2.  This is over 30% more.  The report does not mention jet fuel as a source of carbon released at 40,000 feet or the ground sources generating low density exhaust that rises to join the jet exhaust.  The extent of this first problem, heating of the atmosphere, is not really understood. More research is required.

The second problem with this soot!

Air currents carry the soot northward to Greenland and the North Pole and then downward to the surface of the ice.  Once on the ice it absorbs more sunlight than soot-free ice.  On ice, it increases melting rate several times.

Greenland is experiencing many miles of “black ice”.

It would indeed be useful to know where the soot comes from so the problem could be solved.  The author has not found a chemical analysis of the soot.

Each Electron microscope photo of nano-particles taken from the ice would be quite expensive.  Each electron microscope photo might cost over a thousand dollars but this is a pittance compared with the knowledge developed.

A simple chemical test would show the soot is not from burning wood as has been speculated.  Wood ash contains calcium and other metals which are easily detected by a simple chemical analysis.  Photographs could be compared with photos of particles from jet engine exhaust.

Instead of an analysis, many millions of dollars are spent measuring the reduced reflectance of the black ice.  Without the soot there would be nothing to measure.

Is the soot caused by burning forest fires?

Wood smoke from a hot fire is normally white, not black.  Further, smoke plumes from the Edmonton, Canada fires were photographed from space; the plume was carried by winds directly south over central states of the US, then East over New England and out to sea toward Scotland.  The plume from this fire never passed over even southern Greenland.  A statement that the soot is forest fire ash is an uninformed opinion and usually wrong.

Dark Snow

Photo by Dr. Jason Box

Are there solutions to the soot problem?  Yes!

As mentioned above, development of even higher pressure pumps and injectors, from 25,000 to 35,000 psi can create particles so small that the droplet is entirely burned; no soot is formed. If true, this would be extremely helpful.  For more images Google  Greenland + black ice + photos.

Requiring all engines to be equipped with this high pressure system would eliminate the soot and by reducing unburned fuel, improve economics.

This could be accomplished very quickly and should be pursued.

Next, oxygen within a fuel molecule causes formation of CO2 gas and water vapor inside the

Global and air Circulation cells

burning droplet.  The gases expand explosively and break up the droplet for faster burning without coking. This type of molecule exists in biodiesel fuel.  Blends of biodiesel and jet-fuel mixtures have been flight tested satisfactorily.   Biodiesel has been proven to be fire safe, and cleaner burning but an optimum ratio has not been determined.  Production of more biodiesel should be encouraged.

There may be a mechanical factor as well.

Changing the size and shape of the combustion chamber may change coking.

Diesel engines and gasoline engines have made improvements by changing the shape of the combustion chamber and location and methods of fuel entry.  Similar changes could improve combustion in turbine engines.

In conclusion, there is much that can be done to reduce melting of ice from soot.

Environmentally responsible corporations should lead the world – this can be done.

While reducing heat from Magma beneath sea ice is beyond human capability, soot can be reduced quickly and relatively inexpensively.  Reducing soot will also reduce absorption of solar energy in the atmosphere and on seas and earth.

Chapter 6 will compare the Antarctic continent to the Arctic Sea area.

Ice on East Antarctica is not melting; ice on West Antarctica’s shore above volcanoes is melting.

Also, shelf ice over open sea is also melting from below.

In Chapter One – Melting Arctic Ice with magma as a source of heat was discussed as well as the time connection to magma but no connection to CO2 concentration.

In Chapter Two, there is the connection of CO2 concentration to gas fuels, rather than coal.

In Chapter Three, the effect of the density of stack gas from burning coal is discussed, and the impact of sulfur and nitrogen from coal on lakes is presented.

In Chapter Four, the chemistry of liquid hydrocarbon fuels causes all to create a stack gas lighter than air.  Availability and use of liquid and gas fuels rather than coal, caused the dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2.

Reducing the sulfur content of stack gas from coal plants provided a successful solution to the acid gas and “acid rain”  problem in New England.

This Chapter Five tackled the soot problem which plagues Greenland and contributes to global warming.

Chapter Six will compare Antarctica and its massive amount of ice and concerns with its polar opposite, the North Pole.

Stay tuned.

Polar Bears in The Hot Tub – MORE  FOSSIL FUELS – LIQUID FUELS

Is Coal the real and only villain in our endeavor to create a safe planet?

Does burning coal cause the very steep rise in CO2 concentration?

Are the near infinite number of studies and news articles completely accurate?

Chapter One, presented data showing Arctic Ice had not melted between 1952 and 1980 in spite of coal being a major source of energy and CO2 increasing for the100 years before 1980.  Nor had air temperatures increased.

Another source of heat, Magma, beneath the Arctic Ocean, became active in 1980.  Earthquakes and magma became active when the ice began to melt. A chart on page 4 of Chapter one,  shows the timelines connecting magma to melting ice, but not CO2.

Further, rotation of the Arctic Ocean water flowing over the hot magma area north of Svalbard, then flowing along the Russian shore coincides with where the ice was melting.  Ice has not melted north of Canada because the water would be cooled to ice temperature by melting ice along the Russian shore.

A record of Arctic Ocean Ice for four different years challenges the CO2 theory.

Each photo shows ice area in Square Kilometers after the summer melt period.

Note the facts:

YEAR       CO2        Ice Area         Change from previous September

ppm    % rise   MM Sq. Km  %      Change        Comment

1952   310     0 % 4.244* Base

1963   320    +3% 7.451*   + 75 %    increase   (no quakes/magma)

1996   362 +13% 7.191     –  3.5%    decrease  (quakes/magma started)

2012   395 +10% 3.387     –  53 %    decrease  (quakes continued)

2017   413   +4.5% 4.638     + 37 %    increase   (quakes had stopped)

* Measured on maps with a planimeter – error +/- 3.5%\


1 52 to 63;  CO2 increased 3%; Ice area increased 75%.  How can increases in CO2 cause ice to freeze, we are told increased CO2 = high temperature & melting?

2 ’63 to ’96; Ice froze to the shore of Russia and Alaska, but melted along Western Greenland.  How can a uniform blanket increase and reduce ice in the same general area at the same time?  The Arctic ocean is supposed to be ice free.

3 ’96 to 2012;  ice area decreased dramatically except along western Greenland.  How does CO2 do that?  There is an answer for the melting ice.

4 NOAA data for 2017;  Ice increased 37% while CO2 shot up 4.5% to 412 ppm.  While CO2 is increasing rapidly ice is supposed to decrease rapidly.  Polar bears are supposed to starve and disappear, not increase as bears actually did.


1 After 1952 Ice area increased along Russia and Western Greenland.

2 Between  1963 and 1996, ice area increased all the way to the shore of Russia and to the shore of Alaska.  However at the same time ice melted along the Western shore of Greenland.   Earthquakes foretelling magma appeared off the Western shore of Greenland at a sea-ridge at this exact time.  Neither Hawaii’s current volcano nor this record of earthquake activity can be ignored.

This history is similar to the decrease in ice before 1922 as documented by Dr Hoel of Norway.  His 1922 report is included at the end of this chapter.   After his report, ice increased to full ice cover as shown in these maps of 1963 and 1996.

How would it be possible for a uniform blanket of CO2 enhanced air to heat the volcanic island chain north of Iceland by 15 degrees between 1960 and 2015 but no other place on earth by that amount?

Chapter Two introduced “thermals” and compared the warm air that rises as a “thermal” to low density stack gas generated by burning methane.  Once in the upper atmosphere, stack gas is mixed with air increasing the CO2 concentration.  It is removed only at earths surface and slower than it is added.



Another concept is our atmosphere is ‘contained’ as in a large storage tank.

Our ‘earth tank’ is very unique;  the only one on earth.

This ‘earth tank’ has a bottom that is not flat but is spherical; the earth itself.

This ‘earth tank’ has no walls and no top.  Air is “contained” above the earth.

It is similar to a cylindrical tank in that a ‘light’ gas added at the top of a tank at 40,000 feet, does not rush to the bottom where plants and water would remove it. Instead it slowly mixes with air and thus is removed very slowly.

When thinking of turbulence in the sky, remember that clouds remain for hours without change in size, shape, or elevation as they drift with the wind.

Chapter Three explained the rise in CO2 concentration with basic chemistry and physical laws.  CO2 did not increase as coal use increased until in 1780 the science of chemistry created the process of conversion of coal to the gaseous fuels; coal gas, water gas, etc. A gas can be delivered economically by pipes.

Later, development of drilling for oil and gas created the enormous supply and low cost of gas and oil fuels and the immediate increase in CO2 concentration.

Chemistry was also necessary for the production of steel for steel pipe and other steel products for boilers and steam engines which were necessary for increased use of gas and oil fuels.  Chemistry actually created the industrial revolution.

This Chapter compares liquid fuels to natural gas and to coal in their impact on CO2 concentration.

These include, Jet fuel, diesel, kerosene, gasoline, and heavy fuel oil.

In other words, Planes, Trains, Trucks, Automobiles and Ships.

Early Trains burned coal –  CO2 exhaust was dense, stayed close to the ground and did not mix into the higher atmosphere to any extent.

CO2 continued to decrease as it had before the “industrial revolution”.

Modern Trains –  burning diesel fuel – generate a low density exhaust that rises and adds to the CO2 in the air.

Cars – also on the ground – release CO2 close to the ground. – but car exhaust which is lighter than air, flows up into the sky.

Ships – Marine cargo ships often burn a very heavy fuel oil but the exhaust is also lighter than air unless sulfur content is extremely high.

Jet Planes – burning jet fuel – have exhaust that is also lighter than air and is released at 40,000 feet; it mixes with air and with exhaust from other liquid hydrocarbon sources.  And CO2 ppm is increasing rapidly.

Density of exhaust gas from burning any fuel gas is less dense than air; about 85 percent as dense as air.

That means it rises almost as fast as the 0.80 density of  the exhaust from burning  of gas fuels.

And that means the exhaust gas from gas or liquid fuels rise and accumulate in the upper atmosphere increasing CO2 concentration.

Remember that stack gas from burning coal settles to the ground and does not accumulate.  It is the only fuel that creates a dense exhaust.

This table is provided to show calculations used to calculate density of exhaust gas from different fuels.

All  affect the atmosphere; the question is, how much? Jet planes  according to calculations, are part of the abrupt spike in atmospheric CO2 which started in 1980 when jet engines changed air travel.

At the same time, gas turbines started driving generators in power plants.

Rising CO2 levels caused by burning hydrocarbons does not markedly increase temperature as was discussed in Chapter One.  However, there are two serious problems from fuels that are not treated to remove sulfur and oxygen and curtail release of the extremely small particles.

One serious problem is sulfur, which if not removed, causes acid rain and is very harmful.

The second is the soot created when fuels are burned.

Neither problem can be understood without understanding circulation of air around our earth.  Diagrams are provided to help.

The globe on the left, considers only surface wind and is incomplete, even misleading.

The globe on the right includes air circulation at higher altitudes. It shows the location of the Hadley cell, the Ferrel cell and the Polar cell. Surface winds are also shown which is important to understanding our weather.

Neither diagram shows air currents from the Hadley cell that flow above the Ferrel cell toward the poles.  This is critical to understand facts that appear on the earth surface.  Both show the surface winds. Note that the Westerlies flow toward the North Pole but also eastward.  Hurricanes in the United States flow within the Ferrel Cell.  They originate in the area between the Hadley and Ferrel  Cells, make landfall on the southeast cost.  Then they follow the Westerlies North and East over the New England states.

The diagrams are very helpful but the next diagram is needed.

The next diagram gives a clearer picture of the flow of air (and CO2 and soot).

Starting with the trade winds which flow toward the equator, moist, warm air at the equator rises and returns toward the poles.  A large portion circulates in a Hadley Cell, but some flows over the top of the circulating Farrel cell and joins the Polar Cell.

Jet planes fly at 40,000 feet and their exhaust with sulfur acids and soot is carried northward to the Arctic Circle and to all areas in between.  Embed this fact in your mind.  It is critical to understand many environmental problems

from burning fuels containing Sulfur and Nitrogen

And as explained in Chapter Three, page 3, burning a fuel with sulfur and nitrogen creates oxide gases which are absorbed by water to make sulfuric and nitric acids. Sulfuric acid and Nitric acid once dissolved in water do not leave; it remains in the water forever if not neutralized with alkaline compounds. Concentrated  CO2, as we know from carbonated drinks, does not last;  the drinks go ‘flat’ as the CO2 is lost.

The United States has a history with the damage of sulfur and nitrogen and also the solution.

Coal plants need to always use alkaline scrubbers to remove the acid gases.

Acid scrubbing been done effectively in the Eastern United States.  There was a time in the 1960’s when lakes in the Northeast were turning acidic and dying.  “Acid Rain” became a national concern.  Legislation required power plants to install scrubbers.  The lakes recovered surprisingly quickly. The scrubbers produce gypsum which supplies much of the drywall for construction.  Sulfur is removed from the environment permanently.  Remember, it is not the CO2 from the plants burning coal, it is the sulfur and nitrogen which can and is being removed.

A further probable problem with sulfuric acid in lakes and oceans is it reacts with sodium chloride to create Chlorine gas.  Chlorine gas is soluble in water and is a powerful bleach and may cause coral bleaching and dying.  Our municipal drinking water is rendered free of infectious organic organisims with levels as low as 2 ppm.  Industrial cooling towers prevent algae growth with 10 to 20 ppm.  We would be wise to explore the impact of low levels of chlorine on both coral and the ocean food chain.

Sulfur content has not been controlled in jet fuel and often the sulfur content exceeds 2500 ppm.  The ASTM global guideline suggests a maximum of 3000 ppm.  For contrast, diesel fuel in California must be below 15 ppm.  All SO2 from burning sulfur winds up somewhere on earth, and since oceans comprise 71% of the surface, over 70 percent is likely absorbed in the oceans.

Airlines can help reduce these problems without government help by simply refusing to buy any fuel with over 15 ppm sulfur.  Refineries will charge more money per gallon but will quickly adapt.  This would reduce sulfate particles, acid rain and possibly even the bleaching and death of coral and sea life.

There is however another major problem that will be discussed in detail in chapter five.

Carbon does not burn completely in any of these engines but very, very small particles of carbon as well as CO2 are formed.

Turbine engines in jet planes eject an amazing number of carbon particles.

One study on military jets found 2 to 3 million particles in each cubic centimeter of exhaust.  A cubic centimeter is about the volume of the end of our little finger beneath the nail.

Copy of Arctic Temperature Report; Confirmed by ‘Snopes’



November, 1922 By George Nicholas Ifft

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fisherman, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.

In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. A. Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations.

Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81° 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus. The character of the waters of the great polar basin has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81° north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

In connection with Dr. Hoel’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

The change in temperature, says Captain Ingebrigtsen, has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. This summer he sought for white fish in Spitzbergen waters. Formerly great shoals of them were found there. This year he saw none, although he visited all the old fishing grounds. There were few seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however did not surprise the captain. He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3° Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15°, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.  With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast of Spitzbergen, all the way from the fry to the veritable great herring. Shoals of smelt were also met with.

End of Norwegian Report

Carbon particles in the air are indeed a serious problem deserving a separate chapter in this book.

The USA EPA agreed; their report,  “Report to Congress on Black Carbon” in 2010 ran to 388 pages.  This report discusses many sources and many areas impacted by black carbon but does not include jet engines in its summary.  Jet planes had been flying for over 50 years from 1958 to 2010.    Jet travel had been well established;  carbon from turbine engines deserved greater recognition.  There is still very little research on how to reduce the carbon.

Chapter five will provide basic information.

Chapter five will discuss formation of the carbon particles and their impact.

– Carbon particles absorb sunlight, are heated and heat air.

– Carbon particles settle on ice and absorb sunlight and melt ice .

– Carbon particles settling on earth increase the absorption of sunlight.

– Carbon particles settling on water will also increase sunlight absorption.

Stay tuned.

Polar Bears in the Hot Tub – Is Coal the Problem? Chapter 3

Many questions have been asked in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.
Since questions are essential for learning, lets continue asking.

What if burning the carbon in coal is not a problem for the bears? Or Us?
What happens to the stack gas from a coal fired power plant?
Why, in 1980, after 100 years of burning coal, was earth’s atmosphere no warmer?
Why was the Arctic Ice not affected for those 100 years?
What if, after all the research, it is really not about us?

Polar bears deceive us; so does coal.
Polar Bears are White! We believe this.
Their fur, which we see, is indeed white.
Under the fur is a black skin and a very black bear.

We see coal, and it is black.
Smoke from coal power plants is black; we believe it.
There are many photos of coal smoke, close to 90% show belching black smoke from the tall chimneys.Coal Stacks
Yet, there is probably not one smoking stack to be found in the entire United States.

Coal, we are told, when burned, causes major problems,
Serious pollution – which causes thousands of early deaths.
Rising CO2 levels
– which causes Global Warming
– which causes melting ice
– which raises sea levels
– which puts 40 million people at risk of flooding.

Power plant

Coal Burning plant

– which raises acid levels in lakes and oceans
– which destroys coral reefs and marine life.

Actually there are even more questions and answers to coal combustion.
We are being deceived very badly by ‘science’ and the media.
Can coal be burned without these problems?
We have already realized that coal can be burned without the black smoke.
It is happening the USA, and black smoke can also be eliminated from stacks in India and China.

We have demonstrated over a large area that burning coal need not endanger lakes.
If we take time to ask, we can learn much more about the problems and solutions.

Coal, which is largely carbon, unfortunately, is not entirely carbon.
There are sulfur and nitrogen compounds demanding our attention.
There are also organic compounds containing hydrogen, oxygen and more.
In short, coal is a mess requiring considerable thought before burning it or banning it.

The carbon in coal, plus air (O2 and N2 ) => CO2 plus nitrogen, but no extra water vapor.
The density of coal stack gas is 1.09 times as dense as air and it settles to the ground.
It can rise if wet coal is burned, but this is not economical so coal is dried.
It can also rise while hotter than air by about 120 degrees F but cools quickly and descends.

Black smoke was a problem but no longer. Combustion is controlled much better now.
The smoking stack is history in our USA, surviving only in photo archives.
Precise control of excess air, and burners eliminates the smoke and improves efficiency.
There are electrostatic precipitators to remove smaller smoke particles and reduce haze.
We are being deceived very badly by ‘science’ and the media.

The stacks are 800 to 1200 feet high and very expensive.
Investors do not spend huge amounts of money if it is not required.
Yes, the stack gas does indeed sink to the ground and tall stacks are necessary to disperse it.
No one wants to breath stack gas with 200,000 ppm CO2 but little oxygen.
The stacks are still necessary for us, not for plants or lakes.
There are many computer programs to calculate how tall a stack must be.
Taller stacks mean lower concentration on the ground near the plant.
Government rules specify the maximum downwind concentration and thus height.
Flowing along the ground, dispersed CO2 is absorbed by trees, plants and water.

Is ground level CO2 bad for our planet? (without SO2 and NOx )
No and it is actually helpful.
Plants at the bottom of the food chain require CO2.
All sea food and coral depend on CO2.
Agronomists have found with CO2 at 1500 ppm plants grow faster and with less water.
There are coal burning plants near cities and they coexist quite well;
trees in the city are green and residents are not dying at high rates.

Is there still something wrong with burning coal? YES!!
Sulfur, Nitrogen and organic compounds are serious and dangerous pollutants.
Sulfur reacts with oxygen to form SO2 and SO3, which with water, form sulfuric acids.
Nitrogen reacts with oxygen to form NO2, NO3 etc; which with water form nitric acids.
They are very strong acids that dissolve in water and destroy lakes and affect oceans.

Has science solved this problem?
Yes! We know how and have done it for many years.
We in the United States have already corrected this problem for the New England States!

Lakes in our New England area were turning acidic and dying from “acid rain” during the 60’s.The problem was traced to sulfur and nitrogen in coal used in power plants in Ohio and PA.
Scrubbers were developed and installed to remove the acid gases from coal plant stack gas.
Calcium hydroxide reacts with the gases to form gypsum for wall board manufacture.
Today, over 50% of gypsum wallboard used in construction is obtained from coal plants.
And, the lakes of New England have recovered; actually surprisingly quickly.
Some CO2 is also removed but removal is not necessary to create ‘clean’ exhaust gas free of strong acids, or to protect the lakes and rivers.
These lakes, becoming acidic, then recovering, proves that stack gas from coal plants does indeed settle to the ground. The amount dispersing upward to mix with air did not raise either CO2 or temperature for 100 years of the industrial revolution which is further proof of the small effect CO2 has on temperature or melting ice.
Is it possible the lakes recovered so quickly because of additional CO2 from the power plants?

A further problem may exist from sulfuric acid absorbed in sea water.
High School Chemistry 101:
SO3 + H2O => H2SO4 , Sulfuric Acid; oceans have lots of water to dissolve the acid.
H2SO4 + NaCl => Na2SO4 + HCl; Ocean water has lots of Sodium Chloride.
HCl, Hydrochloric Acid, is a strong acid with unusual properties.
HCl + O2 => H20 + Cl2 Oceans have sufficient oxygen for this reaction to form Chlorine.
Sulfur from burning sulfur in fuels and also from underwater thermal vents => Chlorine.

Chlorine is a very powerful bleach!
It kills microorganisms and bacteria and will bleach many things.
Chlorine is added to our municipal water to kill bacteria and provide safe drinking water.
Is this the cause of the bleached and dying coral reefs?
One Study by RW Macdonald reports that sea water will react with 1.5 mg chlorine per liter.
link; dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Reactions of chlorine and coral could be and should be studied.
We do not need more reports verifying that coral is being affected by something.
Removing sulfur and nitrogen oxides from fuels should reduce the problem.
Obviously, sulfur and sulfides from underwater hydrothermal vents cannot be controlled.
Complete removal of Chlorine will be impossible but likely acceptable.

Organic compounds are converted to CO2 and water at high flame temperatures.
CO2 and water vapor are not be a problem; design of boiler fireboxes might be.
Krugler studied two incinerators at a Chemical Plant in California that were not effective.
Changing the foul gas inlet and raising the temperature eliminated the problem. Krugler’s data
was used by the local Air Pollution Control District to write their AP-42 manual.

This is what we have so far and into the future.

Chapter 1 Arctic Ocean – CO2 is not the Polar Bear’s Hot Tub villain.
Chapter 2 Natural Gas – Cheap energy and necessary standby energy;
and a zillion “thermals” boosting GHG’s ever higher.
Chapter 3 Coal. It is not bad if it is only coal.
Or if the acid gasses are removed.


Chapter 4 – What about Diesel and other liquid fuels?
Chapter 5 Greenlands black ice and air circulation cells
Chapter 6 Antarctica – No Polar Bears but lots of Ice and Penguins,
and two melting glaciers.

Stay Tuned – Please email me if you have additional ideas and information on this subject.



Polar bears are amazing, living in an amazing environment!
There is another amazing creature in the Arctic, a summer visitor!
They understand climate and there is much we can learn from them to understand CO2.

They lead us to answer some big questions:
What if it’s not about burning coal?
What if CO2 is not the main contributor to Global Warming?
What if there are different questions to ask and study?

“Science” knows that:
– CO2 is increasing faster and faster since starting to rise very rapidly in 1980
– Air temperature has been rising at a constant rate after 1980
– Temperature had not increased for 100 years of the industrial revolution
– Area of sea ice over the Arctic Ocean has been decreasing since 1995
– Models based on CO2 acting as a gas blanket do indeed predict doom.

“Settled Science”, knowing all this, decides that to save our planet:
– CO2 must be the demon that must be controlled;
– Concentration is much too high and must be lowered immediately
– It may be too late to save the planet;
– The tipping point may have been passed:
– No price is too high to save the Bears, the planet, and us.

But what if these things that we measure are like wheels on a car, all controlled and directed by a steering wheel we do not yet recognize or understand?

Lets look for answers by understanding why CO2 concentration is running away.

The amazing summer visitor to the North Pole is called the Arctic Tern. Many thousands of Terns fly over 12,000 miles each spring to spend summers with the Polar Bears. They can fly over 300 miles a day. Rather than working hard by flapping their wings, they glide effortlessly much of the time. They can even sleep while they glide. Before winter sets in, they reverse course flying 12,000 miles south. Understanding how they glide can teach us about CO2 concentration.
Yes, of course it sounds ridiculous but please read on. It is really basic science.

They are not the only birds that glide or soar. Eagles, Hawks, Condors , Gulls, Storks, Albatross etc. can soar and glide. Man has also learned how to soar in gliders and sailplanes. All take advantage of the science of rising air currents. Gliding and Soaring are possible wherever air is rising as it does flowing up hills, or up and over ridges or mountain sides, or over a “thermal”.
“Thermals”, our main interest, are rising columns of air and occur over hot places on the ground like over cities with black roads and roofs, or over a power plant with a plume of rising stack gas.

Thermals, the column of rising air, can rise thousands of feet, and surprise, they do not disperse but maintain their slender shape while they rise.
( Go to aviationweather.ws scroll down to Chapter 16 and select Thermal soaring)


Thermals UPEmbed the ‘slender waist’ feature of Figure 147 in your mind; it is a very important feature.
Heat sources include chimneys, factories and cities.

There are many more examples:
1 At a kitchen stove, a pot of boiling water creates a column of low density water vapor.
2 Air over a city is warmer and less dense than surrounding air.
Asphalt roads, roofs and parking lots absorb sunlight, become hot and heat city air.
Cities use a lot of energy in lights, factory and office equipment, cars and trucks.
Trees are plentiful in most cities transpiring low density water vapor.
3 Clouds demonstrate the slender waist principle; they do not disperse as they drift along; there is little turbulence at their altitude to aid dispersion. Clouds float at an altitude where their mixture of very small water droplets and humid air equals the density of surrounding air.


It is time for some simple science explaining the connection of ‘thermals’ to CO2 concentration.
Simple chemistry that you might have learned in high school is useful but not required to understand this connection.


We, the people, are burning a lot of clean burning natural gas, and burning more every day.
What happens to the gas that goes up the stack? We need to know to understand CO2.

First the Chemistry:
Methane, is chemically CH4, made of carbon and hydrogen; both react with oxygen.
CH4 + air ( oxygen and nitrogen ) => CO2 + 2 H2O + the Nitrogen from the air.
CO2 is a dense gas, 1.5 times as dense as air and if pure it will ‘sink’ to the ground.
H2O vapor is very light, about half as dense as air. Water vapor rises rapidly.
Due to the water vapor, the exhaust gas is 20% lighter than air; and it rises, rapidly.
Each power plant that burns natural gas, creates a lot of stack gas that is less dense than air.
As it leaves the power plant it is like a hot air balloon that rises fast and far.

THE NEXT STEP IS SIMPLE PHYSICS:1048 CO2 graph 800 to 2100

We need to ask, what happens to the rising column of CO2 & water-vapor?
1 Until the water vapor is condensed this “THERMAL” remains less dense than air and keeps rising, and rising, and rising into the atmosphere.
2 There are no forests, or bodies of water in the upper atmosphere to remove CO2.
3 In time, CO2 molecules disperse into the entire atmosphere increasing CO2 concentration.
4 Green plants and water absorb a lot of CO2 but do not keep up with our present burn rate.
5 Further, CO2 from burning natural gas enters the atmosphere at very high altitudes, far from the green plants and trees that convert the CO2 into cellulose.
6 All wind/solar power is intermittent; usually a gas burning turbine is used as back-up.
7 The more natural gas we burn, the higher the CO2 concentration becomes.
8 Burning more natural gas each day means the concentration of CO2 in our air must rise.



Think it through, carefully!
Until there is economical battery or other standby power, shutting down coal and nuclear and installing intermittent solar/wind will require more gas burning plants – which will continue increasing CO2 concentration drastically.

Please share your knowledge and wisdom in the comments below.

Credits will be gratefully given in a future issue since this is an on-going conversation.
Make a comment or email me directly.

if you are interested in this subject, subscribe to the blog!

Illustrations courtesy of aviationweather.ws


     When I was a preteen on an isolated farm in Northern Wisconsin,  every summer I saw a group of prairie chickens on the edge of our ‘south field’.  They cackled and boomed;  dooo, dooo dooooo!
        Then, One summer they were silent.
         We had provided some of their food.  We did not shoot them, we did not have a tractor and our two horses and the cows did not graze there to bother them.PRAIRIE CHICKEN
          Our farm was surrounded by woods,  the prairie chicken habitat was ideal and enormous.
          Our  nearest neighbor lived 2 miles west, through woods. To the south, more woods and 1.5 miles beyond, flowed a river. To the east lay 2 miles of woods and to the north 20 miles of woods.  It was not an urban or encroaching environment.
           As far as we  were concerned, they disappeared with only one possible explanation.
            It was the Depression and drought and we were in the middle of it.
           When I was six, a lightning strike destroyed our 5 barns, a wood stave silo, a tool shed and our car.  The fire insurance adjuster stated the concrete foundation did not burn and if we rebuilt we would be paid for materials.  If we did not build, no insurance.
   We shot and trapped rabbits for food and income, which we needed.
            Rabbits were one important help.  But something happened to them as well.
            We brought home the usual rabbits to our mother.  But one day, she refused to cook one.  It had a large boil on its flank and my mother wisely determined that it was too dangerous to eat.  She refused to gamble with health and we stopped hunting.
            Then the rabbits disappeared – so did  that source of meat and income – I remember the change very well.
            It was then the Prairie Chickens disappeared; we guessed that without the rabbits,  hungry wolves possibly hunted the chickens down – every last one.
            Partridge disappeared at the same time.
            Then the wolves, coyotes and foxes also disappeared.  Barking and howling was no longer to be heard. Their food sources had vanished.
            When I was 16 years old, I had a face to face with a very large timber wolf in the woods north of our farm;  he was chasing my dog who was racing to me as a last resort for protection. Normally timber wolves lived farther north; had their food sources also disappeared.  Fortunately,  I spread out my raincoat and maybe yelled.  With their last jumps, about 20 feet away, my dog turned around in midair landing at my feet facing the wolf. The wolf  changed course ever so slightly.  He flew past me, waist high and just outside my raincoat.  My dog suddenly became brave and dashed after the wolf.
            I was sure he had made a fatal decision and I ran for the clearing; but after a long maybe 15 minutes he rejoined me.  He was panting and shaking and could not stop moving, but got lots of hugs.
            We also trapped and sold ermine pelts for 10 to 15 cents each.  Often our traps were raided.   Footprints in the snow pointed to great horned owls who were helping themselves overnight to our trapped animals. My brother figured out how to trap the owls and get rid of them.  The thievery stopped and we got our animals back.
            But the following year, with no owls, our fields were overrun with mice.
            We learned hard lessons of Interdependence.
            Thinking about those stories now inspires a new train of thought and a question.  My brother solved the problem of the owls stealing our trapped animals with the wrong solution.
            What problems are we solving and are trying to solve with the wrong answer?

Polar Bears in the Hot Tub

They live on top of the world.
They have it all to themselves.
Northern Lights provide wide screen entertainment.
No people, No cars.
Few other animals; None as powerful.
No trees, No bugs, No noisy crows.
For dinner, Seals come to them while they wait.
All summer, large swimming pools, everywhere.



Life was especially great until 1900 when there were an estimated 25,000 bears.
Then long range rifles with telescope sights were invented.
Bear population dropped significantly to between 5,000 and 10,000 bears.
Then, between 1956 and 1994 Northern nations prohibited hunting.
From 2008 to 2017 the population of  Polar Bears rebounded and today there are about 31,000.
Polar Bears – Facts & Myths; Susan J Crockford
After 1990, people, concerned people, began showing up, but armed with cameras, airplanes, satellites in the sky.
Pictures were published; concerned people, started drawing conclusions!


Satellite photos showed that ice at the North Pole was melting!
Many research papers were published on causes!
“Ninety-seven percent” of selected scientists agreed; “greenhouse gasses are the cause”!
This is a man-made Catastrophe!
Polar bears will die from lack of ice and food!
The planet will die from hot weather; we will all die!
Burning fossil fuels must be stopped to eliminate CO2!
International Conferences were held in Japan and France!
Political leaders promised to save the polar bears and us!
What if it’s not about us?
What if it’s not about CO2?
What if it’s not about burning fossil fuels?


Who is not aware of the volcanic eruption of Mount Saint Helens in 1980?
Volcanologists and geologists ‘listened’ to the earthquakes before it erupted.
They established a “RED ZONE” around the mountain and ordered everyone to evacuate.
They established an outer “BLUE ZONE” where only permitted people could go.
Three people died in the red zone.
Three died in the “blue zone” with permits to be there.
Fifty-one other people died outside the blue zone which was considered ‘safe’.
Many lives were saved because scientists listened to the earthquake warnings of rising magma.

Earthquakes under the Arctic Ocean have been active and talking to us since 1975.
They are telling us about white hot magma under the Arctic Ocean and it’s volcanic Islands.
Should we not listen to save Bears, our resources and maybe our lives??

Image of the arctic circle

Earthquake records can be found at earthquaketrack.com where time, location, magnitude and depth are

available for many selectable regions. They do not predict catastrophic eruptions!
They do accurately identify areas of rising white hot magma!

Like the Hawaiian Island Chain, the volcanic islands of Iceland, Jan Mayen, Svalbard and Russia’s Severnaya form a straight line chain of active volcanic islands over 2500 miles long.
There is also a parallel undersea ridge some 2600 miles long with similar volcanic activity.
Further, there are active branches to the undersea ridge.
Total length is over 7,000 miles of active earthquakes and rising magma.
The area of hot rock under the Arctic is purely an estimate.
A report estimated the width as up to 150 miles, much wider than earlier estimates.
Then if we add the vertical area of the cracks and channels, the area is truly enormous.
That means over 1,000,000 square miles of hot seafloor to heat THE POLAR BEAR TUBS.

Numerous earthquakes have been recorded under these Islands and Ocean since 1953.
Please note the triangles and dots at the bottom of the graph; annual quake intensity (energy)
triangles between 1960 and 1980 indicate near zero quakes;
Dots after 1980 indicate many quakes, each dot the total earthquake energy for one year.
An example is one location on Iceland which peaked in 2015:
2013 – 5 quakes; 2014 – 8; 2015 – 51; 2016 – 1; 2017 – 1. The quakes started in 1980, reached a peak in 2015 and have diminished to 1 in 2016 and 2017. The magma is no longer rising and the rocky seabed is cooling! If earthquakes do not return, ice will likely return.
It will likely take several years for the existing hot rock to cool and the ice to return.


The following chart of data is very helpful in understanding the data.
It was created to visualize the connections between CO2 concentration and air temperature, the area of winter ice, area of summer ice, and earthquakes.

June Land and Ocean Surface Mean Temp Anomalies Graph

Polar Bear Graph

Earthquake records show almost no earthquakes in the Arctic region for a period before 1980.
1   CO2 ppm was rising smoothly from 320 ppm in 1960 to 410 ppm in 2017!
2   Temperature did not rise until 1980; 20 years of no response to rising CO2!!
Actually, in 1880, 100 years earlier, the air temperature was the same as in 1980!
Clearly, air temperature and ice are responding to a different energy source.!!!
3   Winter ice area decreased only after 1990, 10 years after temperature increased!
4    Summer ice area started decreasing in 1998, 18 years after the rising temperature !
Summer ice did not respond to CO2 at all for 18 years of temperature increases!!
5   Thinner winter ice, 1 to 3 feet thick, responded more quickly to magma and earthquakes.
And very significant!!, only along the Russian shore!!
6    Thicker summer ice area, up to 10 feet thick, responded 16 years later.
7    Norwegian expeditions in 2005 and 2008 at 73 deg. North latitude on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge near Loki’s Castle north of Iceland, reported numerous underwater volcanoes and thermal steam vents measuring up to 570 degrees F. The magma is there!!
8    Another Norwegian expedition in 1922 studied unusual melting of sea ice and glaciers north of Svalbard. See a following page for a copy of the published report. Note, accurate records of global earthquakes were not available at this time, 100 years ago.
9     In 2013, Dr Jorge of Norway reported the discovery of an underwater volcanic ridge  between Iceland and Svalbard  1,500 KM; equal to the distance from San Francisco to New York City.

Note the section on underwater volcanoes and thermal vents.
There can be no doubt that there is a long and large area of hot magma beneath the island chain. 
10    Satellite photos show the ice is melting along the Russian shores but not along the Canadian shore. This is just as it should be!

Seawater of the Arctic Ocean is circulating in a counterclockwise direction.
This means it flows over the earthquake zones and gets hotter, then flows along the Russian shore melting ice and cooling off. By the time this heated seawater flows under the ice north of Canada it has cooled off and can no longer melt ice.

There can be no doubt that there is a major source of heat under the Arctic Ocean north of Iceland and Russia!
Earthquakes are telling us the Magma had been rising under the Arctic Ocean!!
And, as for the future, these earthquakes have largely stopped – the magma is not rising now.
If the magma is not rising; this source of heat will disappear.
No help needed from much less powerful human beings!

There is a growing interest in the earthquake-magma-volcano field by earth scientists.
Dr Tolstoy commented that magma may be affecting earths temperature.

Chapter two will explore the history of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere.
The rise is not as simple as “we are burning more so it is rising.”
Nor will CO2 stop rising if we stop burning coal and convert to wind/solar.

Chapter three will discuss the second source of energy that is raising air temperature and
affecting melting ice at the Arctic Ocean and Greenland’s ice fields.


Knowledge Best Defense for Fire Risks

Biodiesel production has no more or less fire hazard than an oil refinery. Plant personnel at all levels need to be vigilant and totally informed, realizing that what they do not know can lead to disaster.

In my background of 23 years of operations and 41 years of plant design and construction, I have witnessed seven serious fires and two explosions. One victim spent four hours in brain surgery but survived. Another missed death by minutes. Each accident involved ignorance. Biodiesel plants and oil refineries are not for the ignorant—or the inattentive.

Is there any operator who does not know that all materials in a biodiesel plant can burn and also explode? Still, fires occur too often and the results are often disastrous. Costs, legal issues and lost time after a fire are very difficult to overcome. As educator Derek Bok once said, “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” Are there ways to reduce the risk and severity of fires? For starters, a plant safety manual is critical.

We all know the fire triangle’s three sides: oxygen, fuel and ignition.

Oxygen is as important for us as carbon dioxide is for plant life; it cannot be removed or reduced except inside tanks using inert gas.

The fuel leg of the triangle is a fertile field for wise decisions. The most hazardous material is obviously alcohol. A good source of information on safety in handling this volatile chemical is the Methanol Institute and its manual (www.methanol.org). A listing of methanol incidents, pages 133-147, deserves study; note the number of fires and causes—often maintenance and hot work—and spills, which could have led to disastrous fires. The number of fatalities is shocking.

Extinguishing methanol fires requires understanding methanol-water solubility. Methanol mixtures of 25 percent or higher will burn. Dikes around methanol tanks need to be higher to contain diluted methanol. Plant and animal oils have high flash points, but once burning they provide great energy, leading to total disaster.

Ignition sources deserve our total attention during design and construction—and daily thereafter. Building, electrical and fire codes are an excellent foundation. One topic of concern is electrical classification of areas. Methanol is a Class 1 Group D material. In addition to explosion-proof equipment, instruments and lighting, I wonder if the dimensions for sumps are adequate. Visualize what would happen to vapor in a serious overflow. Static sparks and lightning are often a surprise. Grounding of all equipment and piping is vital, requiring special care in daily grounding to trucks and rail cars. Discharge from air hoses and even steam can create static discharges. Written hot work permit forms and procedures that require sign-off by both operations supervision and technical personnel are vital.

During the phase of process selection and design, there are opportunities to reduce events and inventory, especially inside buildings, and to reduce the dangers inherent in transfers. A continuous process will normally have less inventory and reduce transfer errors (e.g., overfill, transfer to a wrong tank, pump against closed valves, etc.). Product can be more uniform and reduce rework of off-spec material. This safety feature has led me to develop a very small continuous reactor and an accurate, pulse-free methanol feed pump. Less inventory and risk mean less fire-extinguishing equipment, less insurance premiums and lower operating expenses.

Equipment selection can also reduce fire risk. Vapor pressure of methanol is high (280 psig at 100 psi steam temperature) and can cause overpressure. It is probably best not to heat pure methanol. Heating methanol between closed valves (a blocked-in pump) without a relief valve can rupture pressure gauges. I have witnessed an instrument technician use “autotune mode” in a temperature controller during start-up; it overshot and filled one end of the building with methanol vapors. Fortunately, it did not explode. It is also good practice to minimize connections, flanges and valves to help reduce leaks and errors.

Choices made in construction materials can cause—or help prevent—future fires. The Methanol Institute has a section on corrosion of metals and suitability of gaskets. It is not complete, however, and does not cover corrosion of mixtures of methanol and catalysts (sodium hydroxide, sodium methoxide or sulfuric acid), nor are there charts of corrosion rate as mils/year versus concentration and temperature. Charts for methanol, glycerin, sodium hydroxide and sodium salts can be found in Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook.

Biodiesel production has no more or less fire hazard than an oil refinery. Plant personnel at all levels need to be vigilant and totally informed, realizing that what they do not know can lead to disaster.

A Better Flosser

This flosser study started with Lu buying me a plastic flosser with a motor and battery that caused vibration.

Vibration was supposed to help remove plaque.  Actually, as soon as the floss touched a tooth, the vibration at the tooth stopped.

Just not enough power.

Note there is a well for a spool of floss yarn.  When it breaks, another two inches is there for use.

The fork was also  plastic and not very rigid,  It broke after a couple of years – I could not find the company on the internet.

So I experimented and finally made my own fork and attached it to the original handle.


Why does this work so that I do not have plaque for a hygienist to clean??

1.  I had trouble getting my fingers into my mouth so did not do a lot of flossing;  a common problem??

2.  It is really hard to get enough tension on the floss using fingers to remove plaque.

3.  It is even harder to get the floss down to the gum line behind the front lower teeth.  They always had lots to clean.

My dentist asked “how do you manage to get the lower front teeth clean??”

The fork can be tilted and held to the side to reach that area easily and floss them by first holding to the right side, then the left.

4.  The plastic flossing forks that can be bought are no where near rigid enough – not possible to put pressure on the tooth.

The fork is too springy.

I find I can floss and brush after breakfast and at night ( twice a day ),  3 minutes to floss and 30 seconds to brush with a battery powered brush.

My dentist says toothpaste is not necessary – no abrasive in toothpaste.   I still squeeze about a 1/4 inch onto the brush.

Avoid Pump and Compressor Errors

Don’t assume sinusoidal flow for piston-type devices.

Piston-type pumps, compressors and engines usually are driven by a crank and connecting rod. During the stroke, flow rates don’t follow the sinusoidal curve that textbooks and manufacturers’ literature often cite. Peak rates are up to 10% higher than predicted by a sinusoidal curve and don’t occur at 90° crank rotation. These higher rates increase values of net positive suction head required (NPSHR) by as much as 20% and cause greater stresses and possibly added maintenance. The actual curve is a distorted bell curve controlled by the length ratio of the stroke and connecting rod. Rods shorter than the stroke but longer than the connecting rod need special crossheads to avoid metal interference but create amazing distortion. Knowing the length ratio of a pump and its relation to flow rate provides insights on dynamic and hydraulic features that affect performance.

Crankshaft and Crank

Figure 1. This basic design is used for piston pumps, compressors and engines.

In reciprocating pumps, compressors, etc., the crankshaft and crank move a connecting rod and piston in a cylinder (Figure 1). The crankshaft center is placed at 90° on the 0°–180° x axis; the crank’s rod bearing is shown at 45°. Clockwise rotation of the shaft will cause the crank bearing to generate a sinusoidal x-y curve between 0° and 360°. Figure 2 shows this sinusoidal velocity curve between 0° and 180°. It also shows the actual velocity curve for a piston when the rod length divided by crank length is 2.1. It is not sinusoidal.

Flow recorders could provide a pump flow profile but it’s much easier to use simple trigonometry to calculate piston positions versus crank angles, then calculate piston travel per degree of crank rotation and plot the results. They are not sinusoidal. (Compressors and piston engines would follow similar curves.)

Piston Velocity versus Crank Angle

Figure 2. Actual curve peaks at a different location and has higher peak.

I’ve observed the following:

  • As already mentioned, peak flow rates are up to 10% higher than a sinusoidal curve predicts.
  • The curve shape depends on the ratio of rod length to crank length.
  • Peak rate doesn’t occur at the 90° point but rather at 95°–120° depending on the ratio.
  • From 180° to 360° (the suction portion), the curve is a mirror image of the 0° to 180° discharge portion.
  • During the suction portion of the curve, flow rates also are higher and peak earlier than the 270° point.
  • The curve also will change if the centerline of the cylinder doesn’t pass through the center of the crankshaft.
  • Multi-piston pumps and compressors provide less “smoothing” effect than predicted because the bell-shaped curve has a sharper peak.


The difference between actual and sinusoidal curves affects many facets of operation and mechanical design:

  • Check valves and passages will have higher-than-predicted peak flow rates, and pressure drop will be higher — by the square of flow rate (20%).
  • This will impact NPSHR and possibly induce vaporization as the column of liquid in the suction pipeline is accelerated through valves, etc.
  • Even a small amount of vaporization or release of dissolved gas will reduce pump discharge rates substantially. Because flow meters in pulsation flow aren’t practical, difficulties often first appear downstream as corrosion or chemical problems. Plant engineers with any indication of such problems should check the many NPSH factors such as air pockets in the pump, supply tank level error, plugs in valves or piping and check-valve backflow.
  • Maximum rotation per minute (rpm) will be lower than indicated by the sinusoidal curve. If a pump is running near the manufacturer’s maximum recommended speed, starved suction is a possibility.
  • Loads on bearings will rise somewhat, especially in high-speed compressors.
  • Stresses in connecting rods will increase but rod failure is rare.
  • Manufacturers of pulsation dampeners and surge suppressors use the sinusoidal curves in their literature and possibly sizing formulas. Yet, surge dampeners must handle the sharper peak of a bell curve compared to a sinusoidal curve. While these devices can’t provide constant or pulse-less flow, they do make a major contribution unless terribly undersized, improperly installed or the gas cushion is lost.

Calculate Actual Flow Rates

Refer to Figure 1.(A spread sheet will aid calculations.)

  1. Crank length = OC; piston rod length = CP.
  2. Assume an angle a = SOC.
  3. Line AC = OC × sin a.
  4. Line SA = OC – OC × cos a.
  5. Line AP = (CP2 – AC2)0.5.
  6. Line SP = AP + SA (piston travel from 0°).
  7. To find flow rate at any crank angle:

a. Calculate piston position and travel for two crank angles, perhaps 2° apart.

b. The difference in piston positions equals piston displacement over the time interval between the two crank angles. It is an average over the two readings, not an instantaneous rate. As the step size approaches zero, displacement nears true velocity.
c. This can be converted into flow rates of in3/min, gpm or other units, if piston diameter and rpm are known.


The above comparisons should help you understand the real flow environment and thus avoid NPSH and pipe-sizing errors. Calculating stresses due to velocity and acceleration, possibly with simple algebra (see sidebar), can aid in optimizing design of pumps, compressors and engines.

It’s all too easy, even in engineering, to accept what appears to be logical. Unfortunately, incomplete or inaccurate analysis leads to less-than-optimum results in many different fields. Another common failing is inappropriately extrapolating data — see, for instance, “Show Some Skepticism.”