Carbon dioxide thrown into the atmosphere. Blah, blah, blah. All life on earth ends. And it’s all our fault because we’re giving the Middle East money for oil. And this is where it all gets interesting.
|
Global Warming, Part I
The Greenhouse Effect But Who Cares? The Food’s Good and It Has a Nice Atmosphere Let’s refocus shall we? |
|
Global Warming, Part II
We All Know the Story... The Fire is Hot Theory Chew on that, Schuyler Colfax! I hope you like chemistry. I don’t. Gee willickers, why's that? Remember the Point |
|
Global Warming, Part III
They’re called "trees" So how do we fix it? The Fuck the Environment Theory |
Observationally, it seems that there is a connection between carbon dioxide and global temperatures. The more carbon dioxide there is, the warmer the temperature. And, of course, the obvious connection is that carbon dioxide causes the earth to heat up. Obviously, I’m not an expert on geology (or anything else for that matter), but I assume that there are certain rock formations that form differently based on the temperature of the air and these same rocks also store the gasses in the atmosphere in a form of million/billion-year time capsule of atmospheric and temperature information. This is an assumption on my part, so don’t make conclusions on this. But I will, for now, assume that -- however this information has been determined -- these people are correct in their conclusion that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere matches higher temperatures on earth.
However, the causation relationship is only one relationship that can be attributed to the carbon dioxide-temperature relationship. Let us enumerate them.
Of the four relationships listed, only the first three are really worth getting fired up about. If the relationship is coincidental, then there is very little way to prove it if both carbon dioxide and high temperatures are always found together, according to current science.
This leaves us with three other possible explanations. The Causation relationship between carbon dioxide and high temperatures is, obviously, the most popular and therefore does not need my commentary.
The Result relationship in which high temperatures cause carbon dioxide is interesting. Unfortunately, I don’t have much to back this up. Honestly, I’ve never been much for chemistry, so a chemist would have to comment on this. One might think that the higher temperatures would make oxygen more reactive and it might be more inclined to bond with carbon, thus forming carbon dioxide. But considering that my knowledge of chemistry is very thin, this is not much more than idle prattle on my part.
The Result of Another Cause relationship, in which high temperatures and carbon dioxide are both caused by a third, yet-unnamed factor is also very interesting and could have wonderfully complex and interesting results that are, to my knowledge, not yet explored. Can you guess which option I favor?
The third cause in this little environmental stew is the problem. When attributing events to third causes in science, you’d better have a damn good idea of what that third cause might be. Which is why I would like you to consider:
You like the title? Me too.
In 2005, the world produced approximately 443.1 quadrillion BTUs of energy, according to the Energy Information Administration’s Energy Annual 2004 (updated July 13, 2006). The vast majority of this, of course, was created by fossil fuels, though there was still quite a bit created from hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. power. Much of this was, of course, converted into electricity, kinetic energy and the like, but much of that converted energy was also thereby converted into heat through electrical resistance, friction, and other mechanisms that I’m sure are there, but I can’t think of right now. Remember, that is 443.1 quadrillion BTUs, which translates to 4.675 x 1017 kilojoules.
The earth’s atmosphere has a total mass of approximately 5.15 x 1018 kilograms. For simplicity’s sake, we will use a model of the earth’s atmosphere that has consistent pressure so that we have the equation:
Q = m * c * ΔT
Where Q is energy, c is specific heat, m is the mass and ΔT is the change in temperature.
This translates to:
ΔT = (Q/(m*c))
The value for c for air is 1.012 kJ/kgK (kilojoules per kilogram Kelvin) at normal room temperature conditions. The variation for this is fairly small across temperatures, and this is the higher number I saw on Wikipedia (there’s that name again!), so we’re going with it. Always make things more difficult, that’s my habit. Erm... credo, whatever.
This means that, taking into account no other considerations (radiation into space, etc.), the energy created worldwide in 2004 would increase the temperature of the atmosphere by .08765C. Which also means that, in 12 years, there is enough energy produced to increase the temperature of the earth a little over 1 degree Celsius. Compare that with the observed increase of approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius from 1900 to 2000 and you’ll start getting my gist. In fact, from 1980 to 2004, according to that one thingamajigger up there that I referenced earlier... you know, that one that wasn’t Wikipedia... oh, anyway, apparently the world created a total of some 8.772 quintillion BTUs -- that’s 9.255 x 1018 kilojoules -- in the years 1980-2004. Which is enough to increase the temperature of the earth 1.74 degrees C. And we’re sweating 0.6 degrees Celsius over a century.
Yes, I know that the energy produced is enough to make not one teeny-tiny goddamn difference in a black body radiation model. But, if one considers the idea that the energy produced near the surface of the earth is created as conducted energy that must then be somehow moved up into the area where it can be turned into radiation that can then be transferred into space, then we’ve got some good stuff going. And, because I can’t find any information on how much heat is moved across the tropopause (the so-called interface between the lowest level of the atmosphere, the troposphere, and the next level, the stratosphere), I can’t quite figure out some equations that might help me figure out just where all this heat is going.
The numbers are interesting. But they are more interesting when one considers some entirely insane concepts. Concepts that are so insane that a former vice president of the United States disagrees with them.
So, with enough energy produced worldwide to raise the air temperature by about one-tenth of a degree Celsius every year, we can explain the observed air temperature increase. So what the hell is going on with all that carbon dioxide?
Has it occurred to anyone that carbon dioxide might be part of the solution to the problem of global warming? Because it may very well be that very thing.
While I am not all that clear on some of the aspects of the global warming theories, I understand that carbon dioxide is supposed to absorb more heat and become a blanket for the planet, keeping all that heat in. Or at least that is the super-simplified version. Which, of course, doesn’t really make sense since the atmosphere is already here and doing that very thing already, but I suppose some license toward simplification is often taken with facts in order to advance a program that people feel is important. Heck, I’m doing it.
My issues with the "carbon dioxide problem" are several. But they are related and they all start very simply. The first and most obvious is, of course, the fact that power plants are not inventing the carbon and oxygen that go into carbon dioxide. Matter doesn’t get created or destroyed and atoms are essentially constant in number and nature. For instance, if you put five nitrogen atoms into a chemical reaction, you are going to have five nitrogen atoms coming out, whether you like it or not.
For instance, let us take methane, since it is a very simple fossil fuel. Chemically, it is CH4. When it is burned you get:
CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O
Which means that, for every one methane molecule, two oxygen molecules will be used in the burning process. Then, upon burning, those three molecules will reform to create one carbon dioxide molecule and two water molecules. Simple stuff, right?
The problem here is that, from what I can tell, everyone is worrying about the heat capacity of carbon dioxide by mass. Usually by the kilogram. My issue with this is the fact that, to compare apples to apples, we need a comparison by the mole.
A mole is a quantity of molecules that has the same number of grams at the atomic mass of a molecule. For instance, a mole of hydrogen molecules would have a mass of 2.0158 grams. This is because, in its natural state, hydrogen atoms are found in diatomic molecules and an H2 molecule has an atomic mass of 2.0158.
A mole of any element or compound contains the same number of atoms as a mole of any other element or compound. Thus, if we take that same methane reaction above with 1 mole of methane and 2 moles of diatomic oxygen, we will get 1 mole of carbon dioxide and 2 moles of water.
Here’s where things get interesting. Let’s say we have a system at a temperature of about 27C/300K. By taking the molar specific heat of methane, 35.711 kJ/moleK (kilojoules per mole Kelvin), and the specific heat of oxygen, 29.38 kJ/moleK, we would need 94.471 kJ of energy to increase our starting brew one degree Kelvin/Celsius. After the reaction, we would have 37.232 kJ/moleK for carbon dioxide and 37.47 kJ/moleK for water vapor at 100 C (which is all I could find for water vapor), which gives us a total of 112.172 kilojoules for that same increase of one degree Kelvin/Celsius for the whole final shebang. Which leads to the conclusion that the resulting amalgam is less apt to increase in temperature for an addition of a given quantity of heat energy.
However, because carbon dioxide has such a high molar mass, it looks like it heats up pretty quick when looked at with specific heat by mass. Carbon dioxide has a specific heat of 0.846 kJ/kgK at 27 C, which looks lousy compared to air, which holds 1.012 kJ/kgK at room temperature, and oxygen with 0.918 kJ/kgK at 27 C. However, compare the molar heat capacities of all three of these and you get air at 29.19 kJ/moleK, oxygen at 29.28 kJ/moleK, and carbon dioxide as a serious heavyweight at 37.232 kJ/moleK. And the oxygen/carbon dioxide ratio is particularly important when dealing with fossil fuels.
Let’s think about the atmospheric system in question for a second.
All right, let’s think about it for a little longer this time. Let’s think about what, precisely, is going on with fossil fuels: we are pulling stuff out of the ground and introducing it to the atmospheric system. For the purposes of our starting atmosphere, fossil fuels don’t exist. Which is to say that they have no effect on anything above the ground until they are pulled out of the ground. And they barely have a chance to do anything before they get set on fire, so their impact on the atmosphere is, for all practical purposes, entirely based upon what happens to them during and after the period of time that they are on fire.
Burning is the result of the extremely rapid oxidation of a substance. Oxygen goes in, it bonds with stuff, which mucks around with breaking and forming a bunch of molecular bonds, which causes a lot of energy to be released (yes, overly simplified, but a good enough approximation for now). In the case of fossil fuels, this generally means that a lot of oxygen molecules are bonding with carbon atoms and, in the case of petroleum products, hydrogen atoms, creating a great lot of carbon dioxide and, again in the case of petroleum products, water vapor. Each of which has a significantly higher molar specific heat than the oxygen that is being used up in the reaction. Which means that more heat has less effect on the atmosphere, thanks to burning fossil fuels.
Admittedly, the one problem here is whether the water vapor condenses and causes more rain to fall, which essentially eliminates the water vapor from the "atmosphere only" system I am describing. However, with the reduction in atmospheric pressure from the absence of a lot of oxygen that went into water molecules, we might be able to get that water vapor back thanks to increased evaporation.
The water vapor quandary, by the way, provides less confusion with coal, since it is essentially just carbon; any other substances in the coal are impurities. But petroleum products tend to take the form of CnH2n+2 which, when 1 mole is burned, creates n moles of carbon dioxide and n+1 moles of water while using up (1½n+ ½) moles of oxygen (O2).
Let us assume that water vapor is used to fill in the gaps created by using up oxygen to burn stuff. Which is to say, we will assume that the pressure and volume of the earth’s atmosphere stays constant and, because our simplified system is replacing oxygen with carbon dioxide and water vapor, we have to figure out how much water vapor is going to be needed to replace the suddenly missing oxygen. So, we’ll just get ourselves a nice equation for this. Like that old chestnut, the ideal gas law:
pV = nRT
We’ll say T = 300K, P = 101325 Pa (standard atmospheric pressure), and n = 1 mole. V will be constant and needs to be determined, but we will need to figure that out. R is the gas constant, but the value of that constant will, in this case, vary by which gas we are talking about.
For oxygen, R = 8.313 m3Pa/moleK
For carbon dioxide, R = 8.309 m3Pa/moleK
For water vapor, R = Something I can’t find anywhere, so my efforts on this are useless.
For an ideal gas, R = 8.314 m3Pa/moleK
Fortunately, despite the fact that I can’t run specific numbers, I believe we can safely assume that the sum total of moles of water vapor and carbon dioxide will be about the same as the number of moles of oxygen that were used in burning. The specific heat of the system is dependent upon the number of moles in the system, and the number of moles is dependent upon the gas constant. But because the specific heat of both water vapor and carbon dioxide is significantly higher than that of the oxygen that is being converted to water vapor and carbon dioxide, the small differences in mole count will be more than accounted for by the significant differences in specific heat of the different compounds.
But I’m not too worried about any of this because this isn’t the most important part of my thesis. I am merely tearing down the old structure now, not building the new one. We start doing that in the section called
So we need to cool off the earth, right? I mean, that is the idea, correct? As long as we have things cooled off, even if I’m wrong about everything I just said, we can still do just fine if we keep the earth’s temperature down, won’t we? That is the main idea, if I remember correctly, we need to get the temperature down.
Obviously, the majority of the energy coming into the earth comes from the sun. As in all but a teeny-tiny bit that, I contend, can be used to explain a 0.6 C increase in worldwide temperatures over the last century. And, let’s face it, nobody is going to attempt to decrease the amount of energy created in the world. And so-called renewable sources of energy aren’t as economically viable as we might like. So we’d better come up with something else.
What would be nice would be some way of taking incoming radiation and getting rid of it. The problem is how to do that.
Radiating it back out to space is rather difficult, since anything that radiates a lot tends to also absorb a lot if radiation in the first place. Plus, it’s prohibitively difficult to cover enough of the earth with color-changing panels (or something like that) that will do the job. Plus, the atmosphere tends to absorb a lot of heat too, so radiating might not prove to be very effective.
We can’t try to prevent sun from getting in either, since I don’t entirely trust the idea that heavy cloud cover can prevent the earth from heating up. For instance, Venus has heavy cloud cover, and the ground below the clouds is wildly hotter than its theoretical average temperature. It seems that, rather than keeping the heat out, the clouds are preventing any heat that gets in from getting back out. And I’d just as soon keep the sun available for when we need it.
If there were some mechanism that was able to take the heat of the sun, absorb it, and store it chemically in an endothermic reaction, we might have something. Not only would that take care of radiated energy coming in, the endothermic reaction would also cool down the air around it. Ideally, it would even use the byproducts of burning as a fuel source for the reaction. And if you make it run on nothing but sunlight, even better. But where could we find such a machine?