Climate Change - Cause And Cure.

Climate Change - Cause and Cure  ~ W. H. Jones  8/11/2014

 

As an introduction to the author, Mr. Jones is a scientist in the area of Electrical Engineering, having worked in research and Advanced Development for his entire career. He has worked for companies such as General Electric and Honeywell, and startup companies in Silicon Valley.   He has designed and built numerous systems both military and commercial. He has designed advanced communications equipment for both voice and data. He has done many designs for computer hard disc drives.  He has ten patents in his areas of engineering.  He is a Professional Engineer (N.Y.). He is an airplane pilot; instrument.

Mr. Jones is concerned about the soft data that is being contributed to the discussion of Climate Change. The words “Climate Change” cover an area of Global concerns that were once called “Global Warming”.  Global Warming suffered from the possibility that data had been presented that was not correct. This led to questions about the probability of Global Warming, and the words “Global Warming” were then changed to Climate Change. To be clear about Climate Change, Mr. Jones does not question the matter, because, Climate Change is now with us. Climate Change has always been with us. It will always be with us. The real question at present – is the Earth warming or cooling – and why is it warming or cooling?

It is necessary that real data be presented to confirm warming or cooling. That real data has not been presented.   Pictures of Polar Bears do not substitute for hard data. Polar Bears are actually thriving (1). To separate soft data from hard data is the job of the Scientist, not Politicians.

The hard data are actual measurements.  Scientists must oversee these measurements.   Peer review of the data is necessary. The data must be correctly interpreted.   Scientists must make decisions as to their meanings.   These decisions are important since they will impact Earth with respect to the well being of its people: actually a matter of life or death.  Global Warming, now Climate Change has been a movement taken up by politicians and the media.  The movement must be to care for the Earth as God gave it to us, and not politicians or the press.

We are presently without reason or leadership in this area. The movement must be transferred to those of Science, i.e., those who seek to understand the Earth and how it works as a system. The Earth is a beautiful system.  The Earth has an inherent system using negative feedback, i.e., when the Earth warms it will produce an excess of clouds that will slow the warming. When the Earth cools, the cloud production is reduced and this slows the cooling of the Earth. It was designed this way, a beautiful system. The Earth will give us time to adapt to climate change. Change in our Earth System is inevitable. It will warm and it will cool. Some think that our Earth is a positive feedback system. There are many intricate parts to our system and there are certainly parts that are of a positive feedback nature.  

The long term heating and cooling of the Earth is actually controlled with negative feedback.  It is noted that our ancestors have survived some half-million years of drastic heating and cooling.  This would suggest that they were given time to adjust to these cycles.   While this is soft data, one might study the Vostok Ice Core Data, which goes back some 400,000 years and shows the maximum and minimum Earth temperatures to be quite close.  While I firmly believe that negative feedback dominates our Earth System there are random inputs to our system that cause drastic and deadly Climate Change. These random inputs are of course volcano eruptions, and asteroids.     

There are no organizations with the required integrity, authority and analytical abilities to bring the available Earth knowledge together and make necessary reviews. Great amounts of data are available. A group should be formed to review the data, and determine the science necessary to follow the Earth’s sources of energy.  Here, we will call this organization the Earth-Group.  A well-known University should charter the organization. The charter would specifically prohibit politicians from choosing a member of the organization. Those who have chosen to promote warming (or cooling) should not be invited to the Earth-Group. However, scholars that have interest and peer reviewed papers should be invited. The purpose of the Earth-Group would be to provide peer review in the area of global concerns and to begin those studies and actions required.

The Earth-Group would be composed of scholars from the United States. Other nations would form their own organizations. The Earth-Group could offer peer review to other nations.  For example, the United Nations Group that has announced Global Warming as fact and the carbon correction necessary to solve the problem. The U.N. political solution is not acceptable to many scientists.

The first study for the Earth-Group would be to determine if there is actual warming or cooling and determine what, if any, action should be taken. While there are many scientists and groups held in high regard in this field, it is apparent that each has data that does not allow them to reach similar conclusions.  The Earth-Group would sort out the inconsistencies.

The Earth-Group must have counsel from an unusually large number of specialties. It will be necessary to include these in the Earth-Group or have sub-groups. The main groups would be composed of scientists in fields such as Climatologists, Geologists, Geo Scientists, Geo Physicists, Meteorologists, Environmentalists, Earth Scientists, Physicists, Mathematicians, Astro-Physicists, Atmospheric Physicists, Astronomers, Software Designers, Oceanographers, and likely others that have important areas of Earth or Ocean study.  The Earth is a complex system and not enough is known about it to clearly evaluate the system regarding its present or projected thermal state.  If the Earth is warming, the question remains, why? It is believed that Carbon Dioxide is not the source (2).  Scientists also believe that the Earth is actually in a cooling state (3, 4, 5). The real question regarding the Earth: is it losing or gaining energy?  The question is theoretically easy to answer.  The answer may be obtained from a simple equation. In terms clear to System Engineers, it is only necessary to evaluate Equation 1.

                   Equation 1.      T (E)= Input/Output

                                            Where T (E) is the Earth’s Thermal state.

                                            Input – Variables that provide heat.

                                            Output – Variables that radiate heat.

That is to say that if the Input is greater than the Output, the temperature will rise. Conversely, the temperature will drop.  The problem is to find the parameters for this equation. The variables are not easily found and assumptions must be made as to their values.  The Earth-Group will find the proper value of the variables from their research.  Mathematically speaking, the Earth-Sun system is generally treated as black bodies.   Assumptions are made when treating the Earth and Sun as black bodies and some of these assumptions may be questioned with respect to climate change.   We will not attempt such calculations here; however, they are important, but tedious.

There are numerous well-documented studies of present and past climate cycles.  From these studies and soft data some dire predictions have been made. Politicians, and those who may find gain, take up these predictions for different reasons. Many books and papers have had circulation, but few have received proper peer review. Their predictions for the future are dire. Those concerned with warming suggest CO2 as the cause. Control of a warming problem will not be done with CO2 reduction or carbon offsets.  If, however, warming is not happening now, it will happen in the future.  When it does happen, it would be desirable to have a solution to warming.  A solution will be presented after some discussion.

As an engineer, my job has been to design systems. Then build and measure them to see that they met their design requirements. It has been necessary for me to make complex measurements all my life.  It was often unnecessary that my measurements be precise. My measurements, at times may have been in the order of five percent of their true value.  The major importance of my measurement depended on their relative values.  The measurements were acceptable even though my instruments were much better than five percent.  My instruments were calibrated yearly and traceable back to the Bureau of Standards Laboratory.  In my work it was not unusual to be asked to make a measurement.  My first question when so asked would be – how precise do you want the measurement?  If five percent were acceptable, it could be done almost immediately. If one percent, it could take longer.  If less than one percent or better were required it would be of some concern, and the question might come to mind – is this measurement really necessary?

Measurements using digital techniques today may have accuracies orders of magnitude better than one percent, but accuracy depends very much on what you are measuring.  It may be difficult to make measurements in the one-percent or better area. It is often difficult to measure variables that are surrounded by or in noise.  Such measurements often require large amounts of data and statistical averages.  Before a measurement is made, you may have calculations that suggest an answer.  If you are unable to verify the answer by measurement, there is a problem. Climate Change is such a problem. The thermal inputs and outputs of our Earth are immense.  It is easy to make slight errors. A one-degree error would be very easy to make. It may even be likely if you have a personal bias in the result.  There are differing reports as to the actual temperature of the Earth and it seems the difference is in the order of one degree, which is quite amazing. It would appear that one-degree is in the noise; that is, it is difficult to measure and requires software to smooth.

The cause of climate change is of concern The Earth temperature is said to have increased by about one-degree. How does one get the accuracy for measurements in the single digit area?  The question is because; the temperature range for the earth can be greater than two hundred degrees Fahrenheit, i.e., minus seventy degrees to say one hundred and forty degrees. Then a measurement of temperature with an accuracy of one-percent could provide an error greater than plus or minus two degrees. If you require an error less than one one-degree then the measurement accuracy must be better than one-half percent.  Such temperature measurement accuracy may bring questions to mind for those who measure things.   What instruments were used?  Where were the measurements made?   Software review? Was the calibration of these instruments traceable to the Bureau of Standards?  Was there review?

Let us say that the data are perfectly correct, and all instrument errors average to zero.  There would still be interest as to how one would define the Earth’s temperature, and write the software to process such a magnitude of data. It is without question, difficult to manage.  The software is a very important area in finding an answer to warming (or cooling). While the software is not easy to write, it is difficult to define the weightings of the variables necessary for the proper averaging of the data.  There are a large number of variables in the data. It is important that each variable have the proper weighting depending upon where the data was taken.  Slight changes in the software weightings will provide any answer one might desire.  Given the software used to suggest warming (or cooling) it would be possible to prove either event by minor changes in the weighting of the variables.

We assume that one-degree of warming means that the average temperature of the air or the surface has increased by this amount.  Was the temperature measured over the entire surface of the Earth, over land and water?  Given that the earth is about seventy percent water – how did the temperature vary above - or in the water? What was the temperature below the Earths surface? Did these measurements suggest climate change?

The Earth is warming or cooling because of the Sun and the thermal state of the oceans, the state of the Earths core, because of the average Albedo (brightness) of the cloud cover, because of water vapor.  There should be correlation between the state of the Earth and the air temperature. However, the correlation is not necessary and sufficient to prove warming or cooling.  This is to say that the Earth’s system of energy reception, storage and radiation is so complex that it is quite likely that a one-degree temperature variation would just suggest measurement noise.  It certainly does not suggest dire consequence. Only the soft data is dire.

An unappreciated source of energy is from the core of the Earth. It is thought to be about as hot, or hotter, than the surface of the Sun (6).   The solid core is surrounded by liquid, which is surrounded by a plastic like mantle. The mantle is the source that powers volcanoes.  The earth has great internal thermal layers of energy covered by a relatively thin crust. It is of interest to understand the effects that this energy has on the heating or cooling of the Earth.  Energy from the Earth’s core is not often considered to be an important factor in our Earth System.  There is some evidence that the Greenland ice melt may very well be due to heat from the Earth’s core.  This may be from a volcano under the ice melt (7).  We see the results of the Earth’s heat engine from volcano eruptions. These eruptions can cause catastrophic cooling of the Earth.  The Earth’s core system is complex and necessary for our survival (i.e., our magnetic field) and it should receive more study.  A small amount of energy output in the form of a volcano may be deadly.  The problem with the volcano is that it can turn off the energy from the Sun.  That is, little energy will reach the Earth’s surface and the Earth will suddenly cool.

The waters of the Earth have intricate (Thermohaline) flows. These waters are storage means for CO2 and thermal energy. The waters receive large amounts of energy from the Sun.  The waters receive energy from the outer thermal layers of the earth i.e., the magma. The energy content of these waters is likely the most important area in the field of Global Science. The surface of the ocean waters average around seventy degrees but at the depths it is freezing.  A turnover of the waters would likely freeze the Earth’s surface.  The water currents change with time and are an important and complex variable of the Earth’s temperature.  There are other effects that contribute to a changing environment. For example, the Earths axis will vary over a 40,000-year cycle.  The Earth does not always revolve about the Sun in a circle; it slowly becomes elliptical about every 100,000 years.

Carbon Dioxide is not a problem because of its 380 parts per million concentrations, i.e., about 0.04 percent (or 0.00038) of the atmosphere, an insignificant amount. Studies indicate that CO2 is not the forcing (leading) function when the temperature of the Earth rises. It is actually a lagging function (8). The media, and politicians use the phrase “380 parts per million of CO2” but they do not know what it means.  Scientists and engineers would use the term as 380 x E-6.  That is, 380 times ten to the power of minus six. Engineers prefer exponents because of brevity and ease in computing.  Then, rather than one million, use E 6, which means ten to the power of six.  In writing, it is much easier to use 0.038% of CO2. It means the same thing, and is shorter. But, “380 parts per million of CO2” means that if you had a million particles of atmosphere there would be present in these 1,000,000 particles of atmosphere, about 400 particles of CO2.  Or this may be written as 4 particles of CO2 in 10,000 particles of atmosphere.  For the media, and politicians 380 parts per million of CO-2 might be dramatic and frightening - it sounds much larger than 0.038%.  

The study of CO2 and water vapor absorption lines are complex and interesting studies.  However, it is difficult to find an estimate of the energy gain or loss due to the two gases.  While the multiple absorption wavelengths are well known, there is little data on the bandwidth for the calculation of energy absorption. The bandwidth will determine the amount of energy involved. While this is an interesting area, it is academic because of the minute effect CO2 has compared that of water vapor.  The main effect of CO2 is from politicians, and  media.  It will continue until an Earth-Group restores reason.

Carbon Dioxide and water vapor absorb a small amount of the energy from the Sun. They are both greenhouse gases.  Compared to water vapor, CO2 absorbs very little energy.  CO2 is slightly less than 0.04 percent of the atmosphere.  Water vapor is about 2.5 percent of the atmosphere. Water vapor is roughly 50 times more efficient in absorbing the Suns energy than CO2. Water vapor is 95% more abundant than the total of all other greenhouse gases combined.  If you were interested in designing a Sun heat absorber, you would not use CO2 gas as the absorber, you would use water vapor.  It might appear that the problem is water vapor, and it is compared with CO2.   For the politicians this should suggest a water vapor tax instead of a carbon dioxide tax.

If it were found that the Earth is warming, what might we do to stop or slow the process?  The answer is that little can be done if the reduction of energy produced or used by humans were the main consideration.  This is because the use of all the energy produced and used by humans in our world is minute compared to the primary source of energy- that is, the Sun.  The energy consumed per year, on the Earth, because of human activity is estimated to be (9) slightly less than 470Exajoules (see appendix note), per year. The energy received by the Earth from the Sun (9) is estimated to be around 3,500,000 EJ. That is to say, the energy from the Sun is about 7500 times more than humans generate or use per year.  If every thing that used energy on this earth were stopped, it would not matter because it is insignificant compared to the energy from the Sun. What matters first and most importantly is the energy from the Sun. It is cold at the North and South Poles – there is very little Sun at the poles.

,

A large percentage of the Suns energy that is available to the Earth is never accepted by the surface of the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere reflect it back into space.  It is then possible to control this incoming energy by using a large reflector to reflect it back into space.  This will cool the Earth. The means are presently available.  This has been suggested before but the method was not practical.  A new means will be disclosed.

Aircraft contrails are a class of thin clouds called Cirrus.  Cirrus clouds have been studied as to their affect on warming and the results have been conflicting.  Reference to Equation (1.) shows that the input of thermal energy input to the Earth is most important. The major input is the Sun.  Since this input is so large, the reduction of this energy will be most significant in cooling the Earth. The aircraft engine produces contrails because of the water vapor in the exhaust of the engine.  The water vapor turns into ice crystal clouds similar to Cirrus clouds. The exhaust produces approximately one gallon of water for each gallon of fuel used in the aircraft. The ice crystal clouds will reflect the Sun’s rays back into space.  These thin contrail clouds may provide global cooling (10).   It is known where and when contrails will form.   The production of contrails depends on several factors and the information on where they will form is available to pilots (11). There are a great number of aircraft in the air at any one time.  These aircraft seldom carry a full load of fuel.  It is then possible for them to carry water for the purpose of increased water-vapor injection into these known contrail areas.  This will produce a dense cloud unlike the usual thin Cirrus contrail and this new cloud form will require a new name, and we suggest “Dense Cirrus”.

It is suggested that aircraft fill unused tanks with Contrail Water (CW) and then inject it into the atmosphere as water vapor.  This will provide Dense Cirrus with an Albedo much greater than the normal thin Cirrus contrail. This will provide an efficient means for global cooling.  It is noted that contrails tend to be most prevalent in the morning hours and this would be the best time for CW injection.  The contrails may last for hours; it is likely that cloud dissipation would occur before darkness. This would lessen the concern of those who suggest that the thin Cirrus clouds may impede radiative cooling.

The commercial aircraft in the air at any one time is large and often number in the thousands. These craft could provide great Dense Cirrus cloud layers by the injection of large amounts of water vapor into the air at the proper contrail generation areas.  Other craft are available for these Dense Cirrus besides commercial aircraft, i.e., military.  There are numerous military tankers available.  These tankers could provide great amounts of CW in the areas known to be contrail generators.  The use of one tank for both fuel and water would be possible by using two bladders inside a single tank.  Dual bladder tanks are not presently available.  It would however, be possible to carry CW in the cargo area of commercial aircraft almost immediately. The cargo area is normally the same temperature as the cabin and therefore the CW would not require heating.    While dual bladders for a single tank are possible, it would require development and certification by the FAA. Single bladder systems have been used for some years in aircraft and have performed well.

Contrails often cover the sky with a thin layer of clouds.  The layers will spread significantly because of winds. The clouds may persist for hours.  Aircraft would carry CW only if a contrail significant area were on the flight path.  A typical large commercial aircraft might use about 2000 gallons of fuel per hour and carry some 20,000 gallons of fuel for a range of about 6000 miles. For over land the fuel load might be something less than 10,000 gallons allowing a load of about 10,000 gallons of CW.   For example, if 10,000 gallons of CW were injected over a one-hour period it would increase the contrail density by 500 percent.  This distance would be around six hundred miles but such a distance is likely unnecessary.  It is thought that five thousand gallons over a distance of 300 miles would be sufficient. The distance is thought to be reasonable because of the large number of aircraft that are in the sky at any one time. This would still provide a 500% increase of the Dense Cirrus, and also reduce the aircraft weight.

The present estimate of cloud density from contrails is about 2- 5 percent, but is estimated to be larger in some parts of the world.  The addition of CW at the suggested rate would increase the contrail density to something around 10-30 percent. This is significant.  This will produce a white reflective cloud (i.e. Albedo) much greater than the usual thin contrail.  The Cirrus is by definition a thin layer of ice crystals, but the new form of Dense Cirrus cloud might resemble the H1 Cirrus.  The Dense Cirrus may require a new name.

Some of the injection of the CW might be at the low-pressure compressor of the engine, as this has been the usual water engine injection area. It could also be injected in the exhaust area as it is expected that this would provide water vapor acceptable for forming ice clouds, and be easier to implement.  Some jet engines have used water injection for increased thrust and other advantages.

Discussion

This article was originally intended to describe a novel means of producing a Dense Cirrus cloud from aircraft.  The new means would provide clouds with a high degree of Albedo. This method could be used if warming ever became a problem.  The method would produce effective cooling.  It was decided that as an introduction for this method of global cooling a discussion of the Earth system should be included. The discussion got out of hand because of the many areas of the Earth that require consideration. It was found that our global system was difficult to describe because the many specialties involved.  This note was intended to be instructive to those with a casual knowledge of our Earth system.  After some research it was clear that the system is so intricate that a suitable description could not be produced. It is felt however, that some useful thoughts are included and therefore, apologies for this discussion are not considered appropriate.

One conclusion of this note is of importance; an Earth-Group is needed to sort out the inconsistencies of conflicting Earth studies. There are important Earth studies that should be brought together under one light. An Earth-Group can do this.

A means to provide global cooling has been shown that would be effective should warming become a problem. A new type of Dense Cirrus cloud been disclosed.    This Dense Cirrus would he effective because of the inherent reflectivity.  It would be an effective means for the control of warming of the Earth.  Compared to other means, it will be inexpensive and may be quickly implemented.

Appendix

To find the estimate of the energy used by the Earth, it is necessary to be familiar with various scientific notations.  Exajoule is a scientific notation meaning 10^18 joules i.e., ten raised to the eighteenth power. The Earth energy usage may also be given in terms such as quadrillions of British Thermal Units. The term quadrillion is not a scientific notation and it has two meanings, usually depending on the country where used.  A quadrillion is used as either 10^15 or 10^24.  Energy might also be given in terms of equivalent barrels of oil or tons of oil. It may then be necessary to convert to a more familiar notation.   It is noted that when the estimate of energy is given in terms of quadrillions, the data might also include global warming information. The term quadrillion may then be introduced as a confusion factor. Nobody knows what a quadrillion is, but it sounds large. The estimate of energy received by Earth and the energy used or generated by humans depends on the assumptions made by those who made the estimate. The energy ratio seems to vary around 6000 to 8000.  The world use of energy is expected by some to increase by 40 to 50 % by the year 2030. Some expect it to decrease. Long-term predictions are always hazardous because of the many unknowns such as technical improvements and world political problems.  If the world energy use did increase by 50% the Sun to Earth energy ratio would then be about 3500. This is still a huge ratio, and to suggest that this would be a problem is simplistic. Oil is an important part of energy use and has a large impact on the Sun/Earth energy ratio. A simple guess is that the Sun/Earth energy ratio will only increase because the value of oil will only increase. It is likely that by the year 2030, technology will provide cost efficient Nuclear energy plants and long-range electric cars. Oil is a major important resource. By the year 2030 this should be recognized and would then be used only for food production, chemical needs, ground transport, ocean transport, aircraft, high-speed rail, and military needs. Questions or Comments? Please e-mail me.

Reference

1. Roy Spencer, PH. D.  Artic fairy tale - on National Review Online, May 15, 2008 ... In all, the Total Polar-    Bear

Population is believed to be at or near a record high — 20000 to 25000.

2.  Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist.  Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about    27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC’s and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gas.  
3.  James M. Taylor. Global cooling continues.  Environment and Climate News.  March 2009

4. Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, disputes the claims made by global warming alarmists.

5. Dr. Don Easterbrook, a geologist and professor emeritus at Western Washington University, has presented data that shows a cooler and wetter climate is in order for the next 25 to 30 years. The Pacific Ocean has a warm temperature mode and a cool temperature mode known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

6. Chris Marone, Penn State Professor of Geosciences  (What heats the earth's core?)

7. Ralph von Frese Leader of the project and a Professor of Earth Sciences at Ohio State University. Crust heat flow.

8. Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

9. wapedia.mobi/en/Solar_energy.  These numbers differ from various sources but the ratios are similar.  The numbers depend also on the year estimated.

10. Dr. Andrew M. Carleton, We show that there was an anomalous increase in the average diurnal temperature range for the period Sept. 11-14, 2001," the researchers reported in today's (Aug. 8) issue of the journal Nature. "Because persisting contrails can reduce the transfer of both incoming solar and outgoing infrared radiation and so reduce the daily temperature range, we attribute at least a portion of this anomaly to the absence of contrails.

11.  Martin Stuefer1 and Marc Kolodner2.  1: Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks2: Space Department, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Documentation for UPOS Product. Atmospheric Contrail Layer Calculator.