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%\

NOTES:

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.

Notes:

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’

IT HAPPENED 100 YEARS AGO AND IS HAPPENING NOW!

MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW

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.

Advertisements

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.

Next:

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.