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.

MAP OF ANTARCTICA VOLCANOES ARE LOCATED WITH RED DOTS

  EAST ANTARCTICA  vs  WEST ANTARCTICA vs ANTARCTIC PENINSULA

ANTARCTICA INFORMATION

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.

THE RING OF FIRE.

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.

DISCUSSION

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

CHAPTER SEVEN

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.

 

Advertisements

POLAR BEARS IN THE HOT TUB CARBON SOOT AND THE ARCTIC

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 – SUMMER VISITORS AND CO2

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.

THERMALS AND CO2 CONCENTRATION

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.

page172-1

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.

SO, WE HAVE THERMALS, SO WHAT?? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT??
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.

CO2 HAS INCREASED, AND IT MUST CONTINUE TO INCREASE, & RAPIDLY.
CHEMISTRY IS CORRECT. PHYSICS IS CORRECT AND WORKS.

SO CO2 INCREASES; SO WHAT? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

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

Polar Bears in the Hot Tub

POLAR BEARS are COOL
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.

BUT, ARE ALL THOSE SWIMMING POOLS BECOMING HOT TUBS??

Polar Bears – HISTORICAL DATA

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!

POLAR BEARS – ARCTIC ICE & PUBLIC CONCERNS

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?

POLAR BEARS – EARTHQUAKES BENEATH THEIR FEET

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.

POLAR BEARS – WILL THEIR HOT TUBS GET HOTTER?

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.
http://www.acadiau.ca/~raeside/quizzes/quiz-11clue.html
ttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/hot-times-near-svalbard-volcanic-range-discovered/

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.

 

The REAL cause of Polar Ice Melt

ice-cap

ABSTRACT:

Melting of glaciers and polar ice is being caused by Global Warming and is happening at an alarming rate – so say many scientists and the media; Global Warming is the most serious of many very serious problems.

Some 20 computer models predict rising CO2 levels concurrent with global warming and ice melt and the conclusion that serious problems lie ahead with warmer and violent weather, rising seas, acidification of lakes and seas, extinction of species and our own survival.  Some scientists have pointed to the impact of dust particules on glaciers and snow pack.  More recently attention has been directed to the impact of carbon particulates from ground based sources on health, global warming and particularly melting polar ice.  Their belief is usually based on the “hockey stick” graph of increasing CO2 levels due to burning of carbon fuels in industry, transportation and similar sources.

Environmentalists, those with greatest concern, want immediate laws and action to drastically reduce burning of fossil fuels at any cost to save the planet.  Others point out that such measures will have serious economic consequences altering life as we know it and may not be effective. Consider the history of laws on drug abuse, homicide, simple theft etc.   Naysayers doubt the very foundation of global warming.

Listing a few of many “facts”;

CO2, water vapor and Methane are recognized as global warming gases (GWG) – true

CO2 levels are rising – true

Burning fossil fuels increases CO2 – true

Methane, a greenhouse gas is also increasing – true

More CO2 is now generated than absorbed – probably true

Glacier ice is melting – true

Global warming is occurring – short term, long term?

Therefore; reducing fossil fuel use by utilities and industry will solve global warming – not so fast.

Global Warming is causing Glacier Melt – Whoa.  Let us reason together.

Unfortunately there are several important facts that are overlooked or unappreciated.

Actually there are several separate and important hockey sticks and special conditions that have not been considered. Each of the ‘sticks’ and ‘conditions’ have major impacts on both Ice Melt and Global Warming.  Separating these sources and identifying their impact would increase our understanding and perhaps reduce much of the controversy that prevents gainful action on global warming.

These other factors will not be reduced by efforts to mitigate CO2 emissions from the “industrial revolution” and climate gains from CO2 reduction will be much less than hoped for.

This essay discusses these other factors which are not at the forefront in hopes discussion will result in better understanding and unified action.

Please note that credits for climate related studies is deserved by many individuals; there are neither staff, funds nor time to prepare a bibliography at present and I apologize to all the giants who made this writing possible.

DISCUSSION:

Hockey Stick #1  —  CO2 from the industrial revolution; the current bad boy.

This large and increasing source is the foundation for the CO2 ‘hockey stick’ that is creating so much controversy.  Burning of carbon based coal, oil and gas are blamed for the rise in atmospheric CO2, which is then blamed for causing global warming, glacial and polar ice melt, acidification of the seas, loss of coral reefs, severe weather, and much more.  Increased burning of carbon fuel to CO2 will indeed have an impact on all these problems however release conditions discussed below decreases the impact.

Conditions affecting impact of the CO2 Hockey Stick on global warming.

FACT:  Most sources of CO2 are unique in that they are released at ground level, and disperse below the cloud level.   Stack dispersion models were developed to predict where these individual smoke stack sources would reach ground level and their concentrations down-wind of the source.

Coal burning does not produce water vapor and stack gas is denser than air, tending to settle to ground level, liquid fuels produce one water molecule per CO2 molecule and is nearly equal to air density, while natural gas forms two water molecules per CO2 molecule and is less dense than air. Released close to the ground, this CO2 is subject to absorption into clouds, rain and surface water and by photosynthesis of plants and trees.  North Hemisphere trade winds carry much of the CO2 toward the equator for some 2500 miles before air currents rise to 30,000 to 40,000 feet elevation for transport northward.  At 12 miles per hour, the flue gas, will be in contact with surfaces which absorb the CO2 for 200 hours; 8 days.  Only after this journey will the CO2 rise and flow toward the poles to materially affect either global warming or ice melt.

Hockey Stick #2  —  “Natural” Sources

Termites, fungus, bacteria and animals generate GHG’s, CO2 (40 +/- % ) and methane 60 % from cellulose.  There has been a large increase in domestic cattle which also produce methane and CO2.  There is concern that melting permafrost may release unpredictable large quantities of global warming methane.  CO2 from volcanos are intermittent and while a major release, belong in the “natural” category which cannot be controlled.  Eliminating fossil fuel will not affect this source.

Hockey Stick #3 — CO2 from Aircraft and Jet Engine Exhaust

Jet Aircraft travel which began with the DC 7 airplane in 1958 is very much its own hockey stick and is growing exponentially.   Jet Travel is much higher in the Northern Hemisphere.  While CO2 from power plants and ground transportation in the US and Europe is being reduced CO2 from air travel is increasing rapidly.  One report states Jet Engine CO2 now contributes 1/3 of total CO2.  At jet altitude, air currents to be discussed below convey the CO2 toward the poles with little chance of removal.  More efficient engines will affect but not reverse the increase in CO2 formation.

Further, developing nations are installing coal power plants at very high rates reducing any opportunity to gain on CO2 reduction.

Hockey Stick #4  —  Jet engine particulates

Incomplete combustion in Jet engines introduces major quantities of carbon nano-particles.

These particles, ranging from 10 to 60 nanometers cannot be seen by the most powerful optical microscopes but can be detected, measured and “ seen ” with high powered electron microscopes and laser gas analyzers.  Reports state jet exhaust contains millions of particles per cc. These particles strongly influence the melting of glacier and polar ice and affect global warming.

Jet Engine Particulates and Ice Melt.

Nano particles of carbon ejected by jet aircraft at cruising altitude settle to earth very slowly and are carried by air currents toward the north and south poles.  A study of atmospheric currents and cells reveals why this is so very important.

Trade winds of sailing ship days blow slantwise toward the equator, then rise and flow toward the poles creating and controlling three northern “circulation cells” and three southern “circulation cells” that circulate vertically and to a lesser degree from east to west.  Particles introduced in the Northern Hemisphere are likely to remain in the Northern Hemisphere.

Northern hemispheres “Hadley cell” currents, rise at the equator to 40,000 feet, flow north to about 30° North latitude, where a percentage descends.  Just north of 30°, the “Ferrel cell” flows in reverse direction, northward but at a lower altitude, 20,000 feet, with much of the upper Hadley cell flows continuing northward at the higher 25 to 35 thousand feet elevation.  This cell ends at about 50 ° North where a third circulating cell, the “polar cell” operates.

In combination, these cells create air currents at 20 to 40,000 foot elevation that convey many of the carbon particles to the polar regions where particles descend to settle onto the snow and ice or are adsorbed by precipitation and carried to the surface.  Whether on the surface or embedded in ice or snow, the particles absorb sunlight, which heats and melts the ice.

Ice and snow do not reflect all sunlight and particles below the surface, especially black carbon, will absorb energy and melt surrounding ice, even at some considerable distance below the surface.  The author observed this fact during Northern Wisconsin winters when snow plows mixed road gravel with snow and deposited the mixture on the side of the road.  On sunny days, gravel sank into the snow and continued sinking even when they were no longer in direct sunlight.

The melting caused by particles will continue for more than one season, diminishing gradually as thick layers of particle free ice are deposited above it.  The melted ice water trickles downward to the glaciers base where hydraulic pressure can lift the glacier and float it for a slide downhill.

A further impact of particulates involves cloud and fog formation which have major impacts on heating and cooling.   Two very powerful examples of this effect on climate have already occurred on earth.  London was famous for its fog, as well as its fireplace chimneys  and chimney sweeps.  Once gas fuel was provided and displaced coal, the fog disappeared. The killing fogs of 1952 and 1962 were a deciding factor in providing fuel gas.   A second area with similar transition is the Los Angeles, California area.  Common practice in Los Angeles County prior to 1960 was trash disposal in backyard burners.  These were outlawed in 1957 and soon the heavy winter fog disappeared.  Angelenos have trouble remembering when they last drove in fog while old timers remember getting lost in the heavy night time fog.  Cloud formation is induced by particulates and is a major factor in heat retention.  The author was well aware of this nearly 80 years ago in Northern Wisconsin where frost could be expected during summer months on any night with a full moon and clear skies.  Standard practice included covering all vegetable and flower gardens on those nights and to begin cutting corn fields before leaves dried up from frost damage.

Hockey Stick #4,  Carbon particles and severe weather

The northern jet stream has been reported as moving southward during each summer and then returning northward in winter.  It has also been reported as moving farther south.  In Europe, the stream had been over norther Europe but is now south of the Mediteranean sea. Americas jet stream flows west to east and bends sharply southward over land and east of mountain ranges.  As ice melts at the poles, air currents at ground level in the Ferrell cells become warmer.  This warmer air pushes the jet stream farther south, and likely creates not only cooler days but stormier weather.

Hockey Stick 4,Carbon particulates and global warming

Atmospheric carbon particles do absorb light energy.  This is demonstrated in the inspection instrument which uses laser light energy to heat nano size carbon particles to high temperature for detection and recording.

There are four effects from this absorption of energy;

First, the particle is heated and then heats air in contact with the particle.

Second, The heated particles will radiate heat to earth.

Third;  radiation from earth will be affected because our earth will “see” the particles at – 60 °F  (400 ° Rankine) , rather than outer space at absolute zero, 0 °Rankine.  Whatever portion of the sky is blocked by particulates will reduce radiation by 1/3.  Our good earth has a center core that is much hotter than the surface.  There is a constant flow of heat from that core to the surface and then lost by radiation to outer space.  The loss is affected by a band of carbon particles.

Sun energy adds to the earth energy balance but so much emphasis is placed on CO2 that the earths central firebox and radiation is ignored.

Fourth,  Carbon particles over the poles will be solar heated 24 hours each day during summer increasing their impact at the poles.

FINALLY;   What can be done?

Saving the Glaciers by reducing carbon particulates formed by jet engines.

In my humble opinion, reducing these particles can be done and should be separated from the global warming debate.  This is doable.

1.  Reducing air travel or the need for business trips or the desire for flying is an unlikely possibility.

Earths citizens are hooked on the ease and wonder of flying which encourages world travel.  England has suggested increasing the cost of air travel but is unlikely to act.  Any significant increase would exclude the poor but not deter the rich creating class warfare.

2. Requiring aircraft to always fly below the clouds is simply impossible because of noise, inefficiency, and safety.

3. Modifying jet fuel would be fairly easy. 

Gasoline in California has been modified for years to reduce smog.  Tetraethyl lead was replaced with oxygenate type compounds like MTBE and Ethyl  Alcohol.   Biodiesel ( fatty acid-methyl ester) has been successfully tested in aircraft engines and generates less pollution.   This fuel has two oxygen atoms per molecule and other oxygenate materials can be manufactured.   Biodiesel blends with petroleum diesel and all biodiesel available should be diverted to Jet Fuel Blends.   Biodiesel from algae is advancing but is not commercial.

4. Engine changes to reduce particulate emissions is most desirable and should be pursued diligently. 

In a jet engine, liquid fuel is atomized ( very tiny droplets ) and injected into several combustion chambers.  High temperature vaporizes most of the liquid but also can crack the molecules creating carbon ( coke ).  Hydrocarbon vapors combine with oxygen in hot compressed air to produce CO2 and one molecule of water vapor for each molecule of CO2.  It is possible that each atomized droplet forms a nano-particle of carbon or a cluster of particles, and larger droplets might reduce the number and size of particles but require larger combustion cans.

Other possible engine changes include size and shape of combustion cans; adding catalytic converters which often ‘coke up’ and would need to ‘burned off’ on the ground.  Oil refineries have a long history producing lighter fuels from heavy compounds with “catalytic cracking” and “delayed cokers”.  That knowledge and experience should be appreciated and used.

While jet engine changes could improve combustion this cannot be expected to happen quickly or without major investment.   Replacing complete aircraft with more efficient ones would take still longer though there are attempts to design more efficient, slower planes.

Changing fuel properties could happen more quickly. Jet fuels require high energy density all but eliminating hydrogen.  Biofuels are unique in that they provide a near zero net increase in global CO2 but also burn more cleanly and reduce the troublesome particulates.

Reducing Global Warming

Numerous articles in science journals have discussed the availability and cost of technologies that would eliminate fossil fuels and also eliminate the carbon particles that heat our atmosphere.  None have been developed or are currently capable of providing large amounts of reliable GHG free energy.  Environmentalist opinions often disagree but have not demonstrated that it can be done.   Most depend on heavy government subsidy which means first, diverting limited funds from other ‘necessary’ programs and second, increasing taxes and also cost of energy with serious consequences.

Because reducing CO2 by curtailing fossil fuels is so expensive and disruptive if implemented quickly there is actually only one technology available, and that requires a different approach and mindset.  Smaller nuclear plants with the reactors installed underground, like Minuteman missiles, and using air cooling instead of water cooling could be safe, practical and could be built rather quickly near major users eliminating CO2 and particulate carbon.

In comparison; fusion power has absorbed billions of research dollars but has yet to achieve net power output.  Decades may be required to reach that goal, then more decades to create new materials of construction, then more decades to reduce costs to competitive levels and prove safe operation and perhaps more decades to reduce size to affordable levels.

Wind power does not exist near large users and until superconductivity is available, cost of power lines, cost of voltage drop and cost of storage will limit useful capacity.  Solar needs large cheap storage to avoid building quick start backup plants to support times of zero production.

Conclusion:

Of the many possible programs, reducing carbon particulates from jet aircraft has a reasonable chance to save the polar ice and reduce global warming.  The writer encourages all parties to consider this as a path for progress.