Mon ouvrage :
Structure et mécanique de l’atome
Est paru aux Editions Bénévent
530 pages, 35€
Demandez-le à votre libraire
ou utilisez ce
Kyoto protocol, what for?
Greenhouse gas.
All
kinds of ecologists are alarming us about the dangers which are represented by
human activities which produce greenhouse gas, with, of course, as a first
consequence, the warming up of the planet.
Do they know what they are talking about ?
Let's give them some samples of calculation :
CO2 content of atmosphere
The world energy consumption for the year 2000 was roughly 12 billions Tep
(tonne équivalent pétrole= ton equivalent oil). the consumption increase from
one year to the next one is roughly 5 % although the emergence of China along
these late years might induce a stronger increase. This consumption includes
the fossil sources, hydrocarbons, gas, along with hydraulic and nuclear
electricity. As the two latter represent less than 10% of total, we'll consider
that the whole set of energies which are consumed on the earth's surface are
producing greenhouse gas.
Fossil fuel is essentially composed with carbon 12C and hydrogen.
The carbon combinates with air oxygen and gives CO2 , hydrogen also
combinates with oxygen and produces water H2O in the form of steam.
molecules of hydrocarbons averagely contain 6 atoms of carbon and 14 atoms of
hydrogen. So in rate of the total weight 85% of carbon, and 15% of hydrogen.
An elementary calculation taking into account atomic weights of the various
elements allows us to see that each kilogram of carbon produces 3.6 kg of C02
and that each kilogram of hydrogen produces 9 kg of H2O.
So the complete combustion of the 12 billions of tons equivalent oil is going
to produce :
- 36,7 billions of tons of CO2 (so 3,67 1013 kg)
- 16,2 billions of tons of water.
Besides, the forest fires as well as the volcanism also emit CO2 and
water steam. Roughly 20.000 hectares of forest are averagely burning each year
in France, and it may be estimated at 500000 hectares the surface of forest
which is yearly burning in the world. Each hectare is averagely representing
500 tons of vegetation. So, each year, the forest fires are roughly consuming
250 millions of tons of vegetation that we'll assume to be equivalent, in
energetic value, to tons equivalent oil. We can immediately see that this
quantity is negligible when compared to the 12 billions of tons which are
consumed each year. Let's also study the consequences of the arson of the oil
wells of Kuwait by the troops of Saddam Hussein in 1991. Let's consider that
roughly 1200 wells have burnt during an average 200 days each 1000 tons of oil
a day. So a total of 240 millions of tons, roughly 2% of year consumption.
Practically negligible (the available informations on the Web are quite
different, such site quoting 792 wells, another one 1164 wells and 1 million of
tons of CO2 which are produced. According to my calculations, the
consumption of a ton of oil produces 3 tons of CO2. Which makes that
according to this site which seems to be well informed, the arson of Kuwait
would only have consumed 300000 tons of crude oil. This figure is much below
the truth, and it is so willingly that I present this estimation may be a
little exaggerated but which still illustrates the unimportance of this drama
in the total account)
The vegetation and the oceans absorb the CO2 but the specialists are
considering that the nature only absorbs half of it, and that there would
remain half of it, so 18 billions of tons which would increase each year the
power of the greenhouse gas of atmosphere. Now, a quick calculation shows us
that these estimations are probably erroneous : Let's admit that 7 % of earth's
surface is covered with vegetation (1/4 of emerged surfaces) and that each
square meter of that surface averagely produces 4 kg of vegetation. The global
vegetal production of the planet would so be 140 billions of tons a year. Let's
moreover consider that these plants averagely contain 20 % of carbon. In order
to produce these 28 billions of tons, the plants will then have absorbed 102
billions of tons of CO2. However it is obvious that nature produces
the CO2 which is necessary to the renewal of vegetation and that the
quantities which are produced by man come in addition in the balance schedule.
However, the contribution of CO2 from human origin may favor the
increase of plant production and a new balance may come out of it. Although
very approximate, the order of height of these figures is perfectly coherent.
It illustrates, once again, the little repercussion which human activities may
have in the climate balance of the planet. Despite this statement, we'll admit
in the following calculations that 18 billions of TEP of C02 are
being accumulated each year in atmosphere.
Don't let us worry about water which will only increase the mass of clouds in
atmosphere (in a proportion which is still weaker than the one we'll calculate
for CO2 )
Earth's surface is roughly 510 millions square kilometers, so 5.1*1018
square centimeters. On each square centimeter of the planet's surface, there is
1 kg of atmosphere. Which makes that our atmosphere « weighs » 5.1*1018
kg..
The CO2 quantity injected each year so represents 1.8*1013
/5.1*1018 = 3.5*10-6 of the mass of atmosphere.
Roughly like the population of Marseille was increased with 3 people a year.
Here again, we may admit that this addition of CO2 is practically
negligible even if the produced quantities are cumulated from one year to the
other one without a natural degradation.
Besides, CO2 has a density greater that the one of the air in the
same conditions of pressure and temperature. (1.951 versus 1.276 at 1 bar and
0°C) but its specific warmth is lesser than the one of the air (0.82 versus
1.00) which makes that its volume increase according to temperature is greater
than the one of the air, its density is so going to become equal or superior to
the one of the air from a given height and its ascending speed towards the high
layers of atmosphere will be relatively small if not null. That's why, on days
of big heat and absence of wind, this gas stagnates and makes a dome above the
industrial ponds. Thus, the CO2 which is produced by man cannot
reach the high layers of atmosphere and fulfill the function which is assigned
to it by ecologists; it only has a local effect in some conditions.
As it is obvious that the CO2 content of the low layers of
atmosphere has not been increased notably since more than a century, there must
exist a natural mode of degradation of this gas which is still beyond our
comprehension.
Responsibility of human activities in the warming up of the planet
The planet is warming up, have we been told. Let us look for the cause
The sun transforms on each second roughly 4 millions of tons of matter that it
dissipates in space under the form of energy on all wave lengths. That which
represents, if Einstein's formula (E=mc2) is precise, 4*109
x 9*1016 = 3.6*1026 joules. The earth so perceives 3.6*1026
* (6.37*106)2 /4 (1.5*1011)2 =
1.62*1017 joules on each second. (1.25 kW/m2)
The yearly consumption of 12 billions of Tep represents an energy quantity of
12*1012 kg x 13.5 (kWh/kg) x 3.6*106 (joules/kWh) =
5.83*1020 joules/year or 1.85*1013 joules per second.
Quantity which is to be compared to the 1.62*1017 joules per second
which are received from the sun : 1.85*1013 / 1.62*1017
so an addition of 1.14*10-4 or to make an illustration an addition
of roughly 1 liter in a torrent of 10 m3 a second. Thence we can
neglect the calorific additions of human activities and only consider the one
of the sun
Thermic balance of the earth
Since the average temperature of the earth has not been increased since
millenniums, there so must be a balance between the energy which is received
from the sun and the energy which is radiated according to the law of
Stephan-Boltzmann (P(black) = SC(black)T4 with
C(black) = 5.66*10-8 W/m2K4).
Thence the earth, as seen from the space, may be considered as a black body
of average temperature of 273 K or, (quite by chance ?) at the temperature of
melting ice, for : 5.66*10-8 W/m²K4 x 2734 x 4p (6.37*106)2 = 1.62*1017 W or joules
per second. This temperature of 273 K (0°C) can only correspond to the average
temperature of the low layers of atmosphere and these are effectively such
temperatures which are observed at roughly 2000 meters (according to CINA,
international commission of aerial navigation) whichever the ground
temperature. As the average temperature of the earth's surface is roughly 15
°C, we may so make a hypothesis that there would exist a layer of middle
atmosphere which would prevent the thermic radiation from propagating toward
space. Thus, this whole layer would produce a "greenhouse" effect
without being constituted with steam or CO2.
So, if we currently observe a warming up of the planet, it is because
the radiated energy quantity is lesser than the quantity which is received from
the sun, since we have just seen that the caloric additions from human activities
are negligible. The question is so now to know if the CO2 we produce
may increase the natural "greenhouse" effect of the atmosphere. The
CO2 quantity which is yearly produced by man is, as we have just
seen it, of 1.8*1013 kg. If we assume that all along the 20th
century, the production of that gas has been constant and equal to the one of
the year 2000 (given the strong consumption in coal at the beginning of the
century) and the fact that this gas would have remained, there should now be
1.8*1015 kg CO2 in our atmosphere. The earth's surface
being 5.1*1014 m², each square meter should contain 3.5 kg CO2.
If that layer is located relatively low as it appears that this gas cannot
reach the high atmosphere, its temperature must be close to 0°C and its density
around 1.2 kg/m3. There must so be all around the earth a 3 meters
thick CO2 layer. But it is obvious that if the density of CO2 is
equal to the one of the air at this altitude, these two gas are intimately
mixed and CO2 does not constitute a distinct thin layer. Assuming a
roughly 1000 meters thick area in which the conditions of the mixing air/CO2
are optimum, the content in CO2 of that area should be 3 per 1000. But
since the "greenhouse effect" is a natural property of our
atmosphere, the question is to now if the CO2 which is diluted in
that way increases the reflective properties of the air.
It is to be noticed that, in that hypothesis, it's the whole atmosphere which
must have the property of generating the greenhouse effect and not only the steam
clouds otherwise, on clear weather, as well day as night, with no clouds, the
calorific losses through radiation would be much greater. The ground's
temperature being averagely 15°C, the radiation of surfaces which are not
covered by clouds would be proportional to the 4th power of 288 instead of 273,
so around 25 % greater. If we admit that at each moment averagely all along the
year, half of earth's surface with a temperature of 15°C has no clouds, and the
other one is covered with them, the total losses would be 1.88*1017
joules per second which are to be compared to the 1.62*1017
joules/second which are brought by the sun radiations. In that case the earth
would considerably cool down.
We can also consider the case that the thermic radiation toward space directly
emanates from ground and not from a layer of low atmosphere. Each part of
earth's surface would then radiate according to the fourth power of its
temperature, but only the surfaces which are without clouds would radiate
toward space while the radiation of other surfaces would be reflected toward
the ground. Thus, still with the hypothesis that, averagely, all along the
year, half of the sky is without clouds and that the other one is covered with
them, so that there is a balance between the energy which is received from the
sun and the energy which is emitted through radiation, the average temperature
of emitting surfaces should be 325 K or 52 °C. If, on the other hand, we admit
that the top of clouds also emits a radiation according to the temperature
which exists in high layers of atmosphere, and we admit with the CINA that this
temperature is 216 K (-57°C) at an altitude of 11000 meters, we obtain an
average temperature of non covered surfaces of 308 K so 35 °C. This two modes
of calculation lead to average ground temperatures which are certainly
excessive.
So that the average temperature of non covered surfaces of the earth be smaller
than the ones we have just calculated and closer to the one we observe, it is
necessary, in order to maintain the thermic balance of the earth, to impose a
greater average temperature of high layers of atmosphere. So, by setting this
temperature to -37°C, we obtain an average ground temperature of 27°C and the
altitude of that emitting layer would roughly be 8000 m. For -27°C (altitude
7000 m) in high atmosphere, we obtain a 22°C average ground temperature.
We can see that these hypotheses are reasonable and lead to results with match
with observations. As it is obvious that the terrestrial atmosphere does not
have constant properties in time and that these properties fluctuate according
to the geographical situation and local atmospheric conditions, the whole set
of these conditions of radiation may simultaneously happen, and the thermic
balance of the planet is only granted for a middle term. Locally, the
instantaneous climatic conditions may lead to important variations of emitted
flow and threaten the global balance. It's only averagely in time that, through
a feedback effect, a local unbalance generates the conditions for
returning to global balance.
Let's notice that, at the beginning of that paragraph, we have calculated an
average temperature of earth's emitting surface (ground and clouds included)
which is close to the temperature of melting ice 0°C whereas the last
calculations above lead to different average temperatures. Indeed, if we admit
that the average temperature of surfaces which radiate toward space is equal to
half of the sums of temperatures of two equal halves, in surface and duration,
of earth, with 325+216, we obtain an average 262 K or -11°C ; with -37 et 27 we
obtain an average temperature of -5°C and with -27 and +22 we obtain an average
temperature of -3°C. That can be explained by the fact that the surfaces are
emitting, not in reason of their temperature, but according to the fourth power
of that one. So, a very slight increase of temperature of one or the other of
emitting surfaces may lead to a very strong unbalance of thermic balance of the
earth.
Conclusion.
We have considered two radiating modes allowing the thermic balance of earth.
· The radiation emanates from an atmosphere's layer with a temperature close to
0°C. This layer is continuous all around the earth and is essentially
constituted with air. The presence of water steam or CO2 would not
or hardly modify its reflective properties. That would be that layer which
would have a greenhouse effect.
· the radiation would be emitted by all earth's surfaces according to their
temperature. The radiation emanating from surfaces covered with clouds would be
reflected toward the earth through greenhouse effect, and without clouds
the radiation would be diffused toward space. The clouds would also emit a
radiation according to their temperature.
These two modes are compatible with observations and the laws of physics.
We have seen that the heat and CO2 productions which are generated
by human activities could be neglected so weak they are in regard with the
implied natural energies. But we also see how much the natural thermic balance
is frail and is most relevant to hazard than to climatic conditions. We can
also ask ourselves the question of knowing if our industrial activities have an
influence, in one way or another, over that balance. It is not impossible that
our additions in heat and CO2 in atmosphere, for as weak they may
be, affect the natural conditions of climate's stability, but nothing allows us
to assert it in a such peremptory way as some lobbies are doing it. Much to the
contrary, the calculations we have just made show how these additions are small
and could be negligible. Certainly, the precaution principle must push us to
take, as soon as now, efficient measures so to preservate us from future
ecological disasters. The respect of environment and the preservation of nature
must guide each of our actions. But that does not imply saying and doing
anything with the chance that the remedy would have consequences worse than the
evil.
It is true that the earth is warming up and that the polar ices are moving
back, but we know that all along its history, the planet has known important
climatic variations and that even along the 5 and 6 late centuries, for which
we have, if no statistics, written testimonies, Europe has known several
periods of great cold alternating with strong warmings up. We don't have enough
data to assert if these variations have affected the whole planet. We don't
have enough past information to determine if the variations which are currently
observed have a natural cyclical character or are up to an irreversible
evolution.
What do we know about the function of solar activity in the climatic conditions
of earth ? What do we know of the effects of volcanism over the opacity of high
atmosphere ? What do we know of the influence of Van Allen's belt and
interactions between the magnetic fields of sun, earth, and why not galaxy? ?
Do we know the reasons why the Gulf Stream is moving in north Atlantic and what
causes the appearance or disappearance of el Niño in south Pacific… ?
Can we assert that these are recent phenomenons and that they didn't exist in
the past ?
Good intentions are not enough, hell is paved with them
Translation due to
“HunchBacked” http://fuckfrance.com/topic/2428934
octobre 2004.
Emile Braunthal Weisman
Physician
8, route de Corcosse 17100 Courcoury
tél : 05 46 91 31 53
e-mail : ebraw@wanadoo.fr
