Thorium based Nuclear Power does not produce much Plutonium-239, which is the preferred material used in nuclear bombs. The higher Plutonium isotopes and other TRansUraniums are about as nasty as they get, need expensive protection against terror attacks, and need to be stored for a very long time.
One anecdote from my youth. The time had come to apply to University, and to my delight I was accepted to Chalmers’ University in Sweden as a Technical Physics major. I felt, maybe I can do my part by becoming a Nuclear Engineer and help solve the energy needs of the future. The Swedes at that time championed the heavy water – natural Uranium program together with the Canadians and to some extent with the Indians. Sweden was and to some extent still is a non-aligned country, so it was not privy to any nuclear secrets, it had to go it alone. They settled on the heavy water moderated natural Uranium process because Sweden had an ambition to produce its own nuclear bomb. Officially this was never talked about, and I was not aware of it at that time. They could have gone with Thorium instead, but a Thorium based nuclear reactor produces very little Plutonium, and what it produces is nearly all Pplutonium-238, not fissile and as such not suitable for bomb making.
I was excited to learn about all the possibilities and signed up for a couple of nuclear classes. One lab was to design a safety circuit, then run the heavy water research reactor critical and hopefully watch the reactor shut down from the safety circuit before the system safety circuit shutdown. About that time the word came that U.S. will sell partially enriched uranium at bargain basement prices if Sweden agreed to abandon the heavy water project and sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, a treaty being formulated by U.N.
Sweden was in awe about U.N, all the problems of the world were to be solved through it, and it had such a capable General Secretary in Dag Hammarskjöld, a Swede. I looked at the light water, partially enriched Uranium nuclear power plants being developed and decided to have no part with it, not due to safety concerns but it was the design that produced the most nuclear waste of any of the available designs. At that time there was still optimism that fusion would be ready by about the year 2010 or so. The cost of maintaining spent fuel in perpetuity was never considered, so light water reactors became the low cost solution.
India on the other hand refused to join the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, kept their heavy water program going and had by 1974 produced enough plutonium for one nuclear bomb, which they promptly detonated. They still use heavy water moderated reactors, but since India is low on Uranium but rich in Thorium they have now converted one heavy water reactor to Thorium with a Plutonium glow plug. It went on-line in 2011.
They are also developing molten salt Thorium reactors, but full production is still a few years off.
There we have it. We could have gone with Thorium from the beginning, but the cold war was on, and the civilian peaceful use of nuclear energy was still all paid for by nuclear weapons research and development. Once all the bombs we could ever wish for were developed the greatest asset of nuclear power became its greatest liability.
Radioactive waste from an LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) decays down to background radiation in 300 years instead of a million years for U-235 based reactors. Initially LFTRs produce as much radioactivity as an U-235 based nuclear reactor, since fission converts mass to heat, but the decay products have a much shorter half-life. See the figure below.
Where is the storage for spent nuclear fuel and other nuclear waste now? Look at the map, it is scary.
And these are just the U.S. installations!
Many years ago I studied Engineering at Chalmers’ University in Sweden and I thought I would become a nuclear engineer. Sweden had at that time a peaceful heavy water based nuclear power program together with Canada and India. The advantage with heavy water as moderator is that it can use natural, un-enriched Uranium. One of the end products is of course Plutonium 239, the preferred material to make nuclear bombs, but it could also use Thorium, and the end product is then mostly Plutonium 238, used in space exploration, and we were dreaming big. One of the advantages of Thorium as fuel is that it produces about 0,01% of trans-Uranium waste compared to Uranium as fuel. About that time the U.S. proposed we should abandon the heavy water program and switch to light water enriched Uranium based nuclear power. They would sell the enriched Uranium, and reprocess the spent fuel at cost. They also had the ideal final resting place for the radioactive waste products in Nevada. This was an offer the Swedish government could not refuse, at the height of the cold war. This was in the 1960’s! India on the other hand did refuse, and they eventually got the nuclear bomb. Since that meant Sweden was never going to use Thorium as nuclear fuel, and I could not figure out how to get rid of all the radioactive waste products, I switched my attention back to control engineering.
.What did President Trump mean with innovative approaches?
Is this where Thorium comes in!? Thorium solves many problems with nuclear energy. Meanwhile the Biden administration and Congress keep hoarding nuclear waste in local storages.
Thorium nuclear power is the only realistic solution to power space colonies. To form space colonies, power has to be provided to sustain the colony. This means that Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) have to be fully developed and operational here on earth before serious space colony development can even begin. It need to get started in earnest NOW!
Kirk Sorensen has provided an intriguing teaser on the case for Thorium nuclear energy.
This is insanity. In 2011 the Oak Ridge Laboratories had a stockpile of 1400 kg U 233. They have been busy downblending it into depleted uranium to render it useless, and there is now only about 450 kg left. Unless this insanity is stopped asap Thorium nuclear power will be set back immensely, since U233 is used as the startplug for the cleanest Thorium nuclear power production
The bill is introduced. It should be immediately passed in the Senate, and be passed in the house without amendments. Any delay is critical. It is that important. We gave the technology to the Chinese so they can build up their naval fleet with molten salt Thorium nuclear power. Meanwhile we still have some u-233 left, worth billions as a National Security asset. At the very least, we must stop downblending immediately, even before the bill is passed.
A bill to provide for the preservation and storage of uranium-233 to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors, and for other purposes. Tracking Information
Register now for our free OneVote public service or GAITS Pro trial account and you can begin tracking this and other legislation, all driven by the real-time data of the LegiScan API. Providing tools allowing you to research pending legislation, stay informed with email alerts, content feeds, and share dynamic reports. Use our new PolitiCorps to join with friends and collegaues to monitor & discuss bills through the process.
To provide for the preservation and storage of uranium-233 to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 18 (legislative day, May 17), 2022
Mr. Tuberville (for himself and Mr. Marshall) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
A BILL
To provide for the preservation and storage of uranium-233 to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Thorium Energy Security Act of 2022”.
SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Thorium molten-salt reactor technology was originally developed in the United States, primarily at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the State of Tennessee under the Molten-Salt Reactor Program.
(2) Before the cancellation of that program in 1976, the technology developed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory was moving steadily toward efficient utilization of the natural thorium energy resource, which exists in substantial amounts in many parts of the United States, and requires no isotopic enrichment.
(3) The People’s Republic of China is known to be pursuing the development of molten-salt reactor technology based on a thorium fuel cycle.
(4) Thorium itself is not fissile, but fertile, and requires fissile material to begin a nuclear chain reaction. This largely accounts for its exclusion for nuclear weapons developments.
(5) Uranium-233, derived from neutron absorption by natural thorium, is the ideal candidate for the fissile material to start a thorium reactor, and is the only fissile material candidate that can minimize the production of long-lived transuranic elements like plutonium, which have proven a great challenge to the management of existing spent nuclear fuel.
(6) Geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel from conventional nuclear reactors continues to pose severe political and technical challenges, and costs United States taxpayers more than $500,000,000 annually in court-mandated payments to electrical utilities operating nuclear reactors.
(7) The United States possesses the largest known inventory of separated uranium-233 in the world, aggregated at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
(8) Oak Ridge National Laboratory building 3019 was designated in 1962 as the national repository for uranium-233 storage, and its inventory eventually grew to about 450 kilograms of separated uranium-233, along with approximately 1,000 kilograms of mixed fissile uranium from the Consolidated Edison Uranium Solidification Program (commonly referred to as “CEUSP”), divided into approximately 1,100 containers.
(9) The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board issued Recommendation 97–1 (relating to safe storage of uranium-233) in 1997 because of the possibility of corrosion or other degradation around the storage of uranium-233 in a building that was built in 1943.
(10) In response, the Department of Energy published Decision Memorandum No. 2 in 2001 concluding that no Department of Energy programs needed uranium-233 and directed that a contract be placed for disposition of the uranium-233 inventory and decommissioning of its storage facility.
(11) The Department of Energy awarded a contract for the irreversible downblending of uranium-233 with uranium-238 and its geologic disposal in Nevada, which downblending would create a waste form that would pose radiological hazards for hundreds of thousands of years, rather than to consider uranium-233 as a useful national asset.
(12) All 1,000 kilograms of CEUSP uranium-233-based material have been dispositioned (but not downblended) but those containers had little useful uranium-233 in them. The majority of separated and valuable uranium-233 remains uncontaminated by uranium-238 and suitable for thorium fuel cycle research and development. That remaining inventory constitutes the largest supply of uranium-233 known to exist in the world today.
(13) The United States has significant domestic reserves of thorium in accessible high-grade deposits, which can provide thousands of years of clean energy if used efficiently in a liquid-fluoride reactor initially started with uranium-233.
(14) Recently (as of the date of the enactment of this Act), the Department of Energy has chosen to fund a series of advanced reactors that are all dependent on initial inventories and regular resupplies of high-assay, low-enriched uranium.
(15) There is no domestic source of high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel, and there are no available estimates as to how long the development of a domestic supply of that fuel would take or how expensive such development would be.
(16) The only viable source of high-assay, low-enriched uranium fuel is through continuous import from sources in the Russian Federation.
(17) The political situation with the Russian Federation as of the date of the enactment of this Act is sufficiently uncertain that it would be unwise for United States-funded advanced reactor development to rely on high-assay, low-enriched uranium since the Russian Federation would be the primary source and can be expected to undercut any future United States production, resulting in a dependency on high-assay, low-enriched uranium from the Russian Federation.
(18) The United States has abandoned the development of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain and is seeking a consenting community to allow interim storage of spent nuclear fuel, but valid concerns persist that an interim storage facility will become a permanent storage facility.
(19) Without a closed fuel cycle, high-assay, low-enriched uranium-fueled reactors inevitably will produce long-lived wastes that presently have no disposition pathway.
(20) The United States possesses enough uranium-233 to support further research and development as well as fuel the startup of several thorium reactors. Thorium reactors do not require additional fuel or high-assay, low-enriched uranium from the Russian Federation.
(21) Continuing the irreversible destruction of uranium-233 precludes privately funded development of the thorium fuel cycle, which would have long term national and economic security implications.
SEC. 3. Sense of Congress.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) it is in the best economic and national security interests of the United States to resume development of thorium molten-salt reactors that can minimize long-lived waste production, in consideration of—
(A) the pursuit by the People’s Republic of China of thorium molten-salt reactors and associated cooperative research agreements with United States national laboratories; and
(B) the present impasse around the geological disposal of nuclear waste;
(2) that the development of thorium molten-salt reactors is consistent with section 1261 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232; 132 Stat. 2060), which declared long-term strategic competition with the People’s Republic of China as “a principal priority for the United States”; and
(3) to resume such development, it is necessary to relocate as much of the uranium-233 remaining at Oak Ridge National Laboratory as possible to new secure storage.
SEC. 4. Definitions.
In this Act:
(1) CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES.—The term “congressional defense committees” has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of title 10, United States Code.
(2) DOWNBLEND.—The term “downblend” means the process of adding a chemically identical isotope to an inventory of fissile material in order to degrade its nuclear value.
(3) FISSILE MATERIAL.—The term “fissile material” refers to uranium-233, uranium-235, plutonium-239, or plutonium-241.
(4) HIGH-ASSAY, LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM.—The term “high-assay, low-enriched uranium” (commonly referred to as “HALEU”) means a mixture of uranium isotopes very nearly but not equaling or exceeding 20 percent of the isotope uranium-235.
(5) TRANSURANIC ELEMENT.—The term “transuranic element” means an element with an atomic number greater than the atomic number of uranium (92), such as neptunium, plutonium, americium, or curium.
SEC. 5. Preservation of uranium-233 to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors.
The Secretary of Energy shall preserve uranium-233 inventories that have not been contaminated with uranium-238, with the goal of fostering development of thorium molten-salt reactors by United States industry.
SEC. 6. Storage of uranium-233.
(a) Report on long-Term storage of uranium-233.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the heads of other relevant agencies, shall submit to Congress a report identifying a suitable location for, or a location that can be modified for, secure long-term storage of uranium-233.
(b) Report on interim storage of uranium-233.—Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to Congress a report identifying a suitable location for secure interim storage of uranium-233.
(c) Report on construction of uranium-233 storage facility at Redstone Arsenal.—Not later than 240 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chief of Engineers shall submit to Congress a report on the costs of constructing a permanent, secure storage facility for uranium-233 at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, that is also suitable for chemical processing of uranium-233 pursuant to a public-private partnership with thorium reactor developers.
(d) Funding.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the U233 Disposition Program for fiscal year 2022 or 2023 shall be made available for the transfer of the inventory of uranium-233 to the interim or permanent storage facilities identified under this section.
SEC. 7. Interagency cooperation on preservation and transfer of uranium-233.
The Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Army (including the head of the Army Reactor Office), the Secretary of Transportation, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and other relevant agencies shall—
(1) work together to preserve uranium-233 inventories and expedite transfers of uranium-233 to interim and permanent storage facilities; and
(2) in expediting such transfers, seek the assistance of appropriate industrial entities.
SEC. 8. Report on use of thorium reactors by People’s Republic of China.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Administrator for Nuclear Security, shall submit to Congress a report that—
(1) evaluates the progress the People’s Republic of China has made in the development of thorium-based reactors;
(2) describes the extent to which that progress was based on United States technology;
(3) details the actions the Department of Energy took in transferring uranium-233 technology to the People’s Republic of China; and
(4) assesses the likelihood that the People’s Republic of China may employ thorium reactors in its future navy plans.
SEC. 9. Report on medical market for isotopes of uranium-233.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, after consultation with institutions of higher education and private industry conducting medical research and the public, shall submit to Congress a report that estimates the medical market value, during the 10-year period after the date of the enactment of this Act, of actinium, bismuth, and other grandchildren isotopes of uranium-233 that can be harvested without downblending and destroying the uranium-233 source material.
SEC. 10. Report on costs to United States nuclear enterprise.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, after consultation with relevant industry groups and nuclear regulatory agencies, shall submit to Congress a report that estimates, for the 10-year period after the date of the enactment of this Act, the costs to the United States nuclear enterprise with respect to—
(1) disposition of uranium-233;
(2) payments to nuclear facilities to store nuclear waste; and
(3) restarting the manufacturing the United States of high-assay, low-enriched uranium.
If you live in the higher latitudes, rain is a nuisance, and as they say in England: Everybody complains about the weather, but nobody does anything about it. In areas of drought, rain is a blessing. The quip ‘poem’ refers to the Bible (of course) and can be found in Matthew 5:43-45. Jesus says in the sermon on the mount:
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Modern English Version).
It all goes back to the beginning: The Bible says in Genesis 1:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water.
3 God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, …..
So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 So God made the expanse and separated the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.
Day 3,4,5 and 6 God created Sun, Moon and stars, flora and fauna all after its kind, and at the end of each day God saw that it was good. But God didn’t say it was good after day two!
At the end of day six 26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
After God had created man in His own image, one kind, two equivalent sexes, male and female, the ecosystem that was started in day 2 was complete, including man and woman; God could finally say: It was very good. God gave us the stewardship of earth, and it is our responsibility not to destroy God’s creation.
There is now great anxiety that we will exceed the all important 1.5 degree Celsius temperature increase since pre-industrial times soon, since we are about to have another el niño. A direct quote in Jan 2019 from scaremonger congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez states: ‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,‘ Her ‘solution’ is to follow the climate alarmists and do away with all fossil fuel in the next 8 years or sooner. As if that would solve anything.
There is a better solution. CO2 is our strongest greenhouse gas, next after water vapor, which is between 5 and 10 times stronger. In fact water vapor is a condensing gas and exists in the atmosphere as unsaturated, oversaturated, as water drops and as ice crystals. The critical thing about precipitation as rain or snow is that it is increasing in areas that already get enough, and is decreasing in areas of insufficient rain or snow. Since 1901, global annual precipitation has increased at an average rate of 0.04 inches per decade, while precipitation in the contiguous 48 states has increased at a rate of 0.20 inches per decade. The eastern parts of the United States have experienced greater increases in precipitation, while the American southwest has experienced a decrease. For example, the Colorado river basin has experienced an annual precipitation decline of 0.6 inches per decade, see fig.
Looking at all of the contiguous 48 states, the precipitation figure looks like this:
In the East it is all about water responsibilities, you must build a catch basin to catch the water that falls on roads and roofs and other paved surfaces, and release it slowly to lessen floods. In the West it is the other way around, it is all about water rights. If you don’t own the water rights on your property you are not even allowed to water the plants outside with the water that falls on the roof of your own house, even though thatt would benefit the aquifer. In fact, one of the most effective way to destroy the environment is to deplete the aquifers. The situation for the aquifers in the world is already dire. Nearly all big cities in the 10-40 latitudes zone that are not fed by major rivers are already depleting their aquifers at an alarming rate. Mexico City e.g. have exhausted their aquifers and are looking for more water supplies. In addition the lakes are disappearing. Salt Lake is a third of what it was in 1970,The Aral Sea is but a memory, rivers are being dammed so much that even the Euphrates river was running dry last fall, the list goes on. This must be solved.
This is a proposal. As in the east, let the water rights belong to the property and cannot be sold separately. This way the water can be stored where it will do most good, at the source. With this comes water responsibility. The landowner is responsible for maintaining the aquifer, and keep it replenished at all times. In times of drought, the aquifers can be temporarily drawn down if there is no water available to purchase at market value. This requires a water exchange market, complete with futures. (This is much more important than a Carbon exchange market). When the drought is over the aquifers must be refilled over time. The West is mostly federal land, except for Indian reservations, see map:
The Indian reservations will be given back the water rights they had before it was taken from them, which was the water that rained on their land. In addition they will be given back the right to use the water from the rivers up to the point of reason, that is what was used before settlers came and took the water rights. They will get the river water free, that will be their reparations, everyone else will have to pay market price for river water. (In the east, the rivers will have excess water, so the price will be zero. and the price for cleaning the water will be paid by the consumer). In the American Southwest, water is the most valuable resource, so water should be priced in an open market.
But how does all of this affect climate change?
The American Southwest is becoming desertified. That means it is slowly made a desert. The aquifers are being depleted and rain is diminishing. This leads to less clouds and even less rain. The worst example is the disappearance of the Aral Sea. Central government (of CSSR) thought it was a good idea to grow cotton and irrigate the land. After a few years of great harvests the rivers dried up, the lake almost disappeared, the clouds disappeared and the rains stopped. This was done in the 70’s and a million people had to be resettled to where there still was water.
The solution is to change the land use to produce more clouds and more rain and snow. To collect the water in lakes, dams and rivers leads to more evaporation, but not more clouds and rain. Only well restored aquifers will solve the problem, together with replanting indigenous trees and other vegetation. For example Pine trees emit ideal aerosols for cloud generation when water vapor becomes oversaturated thanks to evapotranspiration from the same trees. The aquifers must be sufficiently refilled to sustain trees. The trees makes the soil cooler, so unwanted evaporation will be less. The same forests must be well maintained to avoid large wildfires.
It is expensive, but much cheaper than trying to solve climate change by mining up the whole world trying to find enough Lithium, Cobalt and rare earth metals for all the electric cars, trucks and batteries to store the energy needed when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. A hint: Use Thorium to replace coal for electricity production, It is already mined when mining rare earth metals. There are many reasons to produce Thorium Nuclear Power. Here are 30 of them
By far, the strongest greenhouse gas is water vapor, not because it is very strong of itself, but it absorbs nearly all outgoing energy in the infrared spectrum except in the so called atmospheric window, where it only partially absorbs. Yet water vapor is missing from the IPCC calculations. Instead is put in a forcing multiplier to account for the water vapor
IPCC has consistently treated the effect of greenhouse gasses as additive, but it is impossible to absorb more than 100% of all emitted energy for a given wavelength. This leads to an overestimation of absorption when 2 or more gases are present. For example, if CO2 absorbs 90% of available energy at 13 μm and water vapor another 50%, the sum is 90% + (1 -0.9} * 0.5 = 95%, not 140%. To see more how the calculations are made, see here.
We have valid satellite data from 1979, and they give very good global averages. so as a test I took a quick look at the temperature rise from 1980 to 2022 and compared what the rise would be, if all greenhouse and other factors would add up to, and to my surprise the result came within 4% of real data, see here.
Between 2022 and 2050 CO2 concentration is expected to increase from 415 ppm to 460 ppm and Methane from 1.9 ppm to 2.23 ppm. these are the most important greenhouse gases after water vapor. The calculations are here.
Extended to 2100 IPCC has given 4 scenarios for future temperature development. RCP 8.5 assumes that all future energy growth is provided by fossil fuel, and at least most nuclear energy is phased out. the 8.5 stands for W/m2 for CO2 increase as per IPCC calculation. See further here.
RPC 6 and RPC 4.5 are intermediate stages , while RPC 2.6 achieves net CO2 decline by 2100, but still rising temperature. Here is a figure for the different scenarios.
Calculations:
Scenario 1: RCP 8.5, CO2 1370 ppm, CH4 4 ppm, N2O+20%, HFC +20%, air pollutants -50%, population 12 billion, GDP 170 Trillion$ (2000)
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2050 until 2100:
Effect from water vapor increase: 2.22 C or 10.54 W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.40C or 1.89 W/m2;
Effect from rising Methane: 0.09C or 0.43 W/m2,
Effect from rising N2O: 0.005C or 0.024 W/m2
Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0005C or 0.002 W/m2
Effect from rising HFCs : 0.006 C or 0.027 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2050 to 2100: 2.72 C or 12.9 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2050 to 2100:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.02C or – 0.10 W/m2
Temperature increase from changing solar spot activity + 0.007 C or 0.033 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature decrease of – 0.03 C or – 0.12 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.004C or 0.020 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2050 to 2100: 0.060 C or 0.308 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2050 TO 2100 FROM ALL CAUSES: 2.78 C or 13.2 W/m2
Scenario 2: RCP 6.5, CO2 850 ppm, CH4 1.9 ppm, N2O-10%, HFC +20%, air pollutants -50%, population 9.5 billion, GDP 160 T$
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2050 until 2100:
Effect from water vapor increase: 1.28C or 5.95 W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.20 C or 0.93 W/m2;
Effect from falling Methane: – 0.02C or 0.08 W/m2,
Effect from rising N2O: 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2
Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0005C or 0.002 W/m2
Effect from rising HFCs : 0.006 C or 0.027 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2050 to 2100: 1.4665 C or 6.83 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2050 to 2100:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.02C or 0.10 W/m2
Temperature increase from changing solar spot activity + 0.007 C or 0.033 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Less pollution aerosols cause a temperature increase of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.002C or 0.010 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2050 to 2100: 0.138 C or 0.658 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2050 TO 2100 FROM ALL CAUSES: 1.6 C or 7.5 W/m2
Scenario 3: RCP 4, CO2 650 ppm, CH4 2.0 ppm, N2O-10%, HFC 0%, air pollutants -50%, population 8.7 billion, GDP 280 T$
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2050 until 2100:
Effect from water vapor increase: 0.88 C or 4.19 W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.08 C or 0.40 W/m2;
Effect from stable Methane: 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2,
Effect from falling N2O: 0.004C or 0.02 W/m2
Effect from stable Ozone: 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
Effect from stable HFCs : 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2050 to 2100: 0.964C or 4.61 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2050 to 2100:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.02C or 0.10 W/m2
Temperature increase from changing solar spot activity + 0.007 C or 0.033 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature increase of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.002C or 0.010 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2050 to 2100: 0.135 C or 0.658 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2050 TO 2100 FROM ALL CAUSES: 1.1 C or 5.3 W/m2
Scenario 4: RCP 2.6, CO2 490 ppm, CH4 1.5 ppm, N2O-15%, HFC -10%, air pollutants -75%, population 9 billion, GDP 320 T$
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2050 until 2100:
Effect from water vapor increase: 0.55 C or 2.55W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.02C or 0.07 W/m2;
Effect from declining Methane: – 0.01C or 0.06 W/m2,
Effect from stable N2O: 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
Effect from stable Ozone: 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
Effect from stable HFCs : 0.0 C or 0.0 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2050 to 2100: 0.56 C or 2.56 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2050 to 2100:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.02C or 0.10 W/m2
Temperature increase from changing solar spot activity + 0.007 C or 0.033 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.02 C or 0.10 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature increase of 0.08 C or 0.36 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.002C or 0.010 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.001C or 0.005 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2050 to 2100: 0.138 C or 0.64 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2050 TO 2100 FROM ALL CAUSES: 0.70 C or 3.2 W/m2
The temperature data from 1980 to 2022 is the control group, and is based on real data.It was then the basis for doing the 2022 to 2050 calculation assuming no mitigation efforts, the most likely result if none of the Paris accord is implemented. The climate target is to stay under + 1.5 C, and this model, that worked better than 95% accurate between 1980 and 2022, comes up with a temperature rise of 1.28C, well below the 1.5C maximum rise since the 1800s
By far, the strongest greenhouse gas is water vapor, not because it is very strong of itself, but it absorbs nearly all outgoing energy in the infrared spectrum except in the so called atmospheric window, where it only partially absorbs. Yet water vapor is missing from the IPCC calculations. instead they put in a forcing multiplier to account for the addition of water.
IPCC has consistently treated the effect of greenhouse gasses as additive, but it is impossible to absorb more than 100% of all emitted energy for a given wavelength. This leads to an overestimation of absorption when 2 or more gasses are present. For example, if CO2 absorbs 90% of available energy at 13 μm and water vapor another 50%, the sum is 90% + (1 -0.9} * 0.5 = 95%, not 140%.
Between 2022 and 2050 CO2 concentration is expected to increase from 415 ppm to 460 ppm and Methane from 1.9 ppm to 2.23 ppm. these are the most important greenhouse gasses except water vapor.
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 2022 until 2050:
Effect from water vapor increase: 0.13 C or 0.62 W/m2;
Effect from rising CO2: 0.025C or 0.12 W/m2;
Effect from rising Methane: 0.02C or 0.08 W/m2,
Effect from rising N2O: 0.004C or 0.02 W/m2
Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0011C or 0.005 W/m2
Effect from rising HFCs : 0.0060 C or 0.027 W/m2
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2022 to 2050: 0.1861C or 0.8720 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 2022 to 2050:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.011 C or 0.05 W/m2
Temperature decrease from changing solar spot activity – 0.007 C or 0.021 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature decrease of – 0.05 C or 0.24 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.0035C or 0.017 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.0008C or 0.004 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 2022 to 2050: 0.0363 C or 0.182 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 2022 TO 2050 FROM ALL CAUSES: 0.2224 C or 1.054 W/m2
Summary of all causes for climate change from now until 2050:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.000005C
Effect from the potential Eddy Grand Solar minimum: 0 to – 1C. Yes,that’s cooler
Effect from the Milankovitch cycles: – 0.0135C
Effect from reversing the magnetic poles: undetermined.
Direct effect from rising CO2: 0.025C
Effect from increasing CO2 increasing water vapor : 0.03 C
All other greenhouse gasses combined 0.032 C
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover 0.27C
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.063C
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification 0.0015C
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 2023 to 2050: 0.384 C rise to 0,616 C decrease if the Dodd grand solar minimum occurs
The temperature data from 1980 to 2022 is the control group, and is based on real data.It was then the basis for doing the 2022 to 2050 calculation assuming no mitigation efforts, the most likely result if none of the Paris accord is implemented. The climate target is to stay under + 1.5 C, and this model, that worked better than 95% accurate between 1980 and 2022, comes up with a temperature rise of 1.28C, well below the 1.5C maximum rise since the late 1800s
This admittedly simple climate model takes into account the expected temperature influence for eac component, but it also takes into account that it is impossible to absorb more energy than is available for each component. When saturation occurs, that’s it. For calculations, see here and here
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 1980 until 2022:
Effect from water vapor increase: 0.37 C or 1.75 W/m2; 80.9% of total
Effect from rising CO2: 0.04C or 0.19 W/m2; 8.78% of total
Effect from rising Methane: 0.036 C or 0.17 W/m2, 7.86% of total
Effect from rising N2O: 0.0065 C or 0.031 W/m2 1.4% of total
Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0034C or 0.016 W/m2 0.7% of total
Effect from rising HFCs : 0.0015 C or 0.007 W/m2 0.3% of total
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 1980 to 2022: 0.4544C or 2.164 W/m2
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 1980 to 2022:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.021 C or 0.1 W/m2
Temperature decrease from changing solar spot activity – 0.021 C or 0.1 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.10 C or 0.48 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.1 C or 0.48 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature decrease of – 0.1 C or 0.48 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.0063C or 0.030 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.0015C or 0.007 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 1980 to 2022: 0.0628 C or 0.303 W/m2
TEMPERATURE CHANGE FROM 1980 TO 2022 FROM ALL CAUSES: 0.5172 C or 2.467 W/m2
This is well within the uncertainty band, being at least plus minus 10%, for such a crude calculation, but at least it is better than all climate models (except one) Here is the picture compared with other climate models:
In a previous blog (see here) I investigated the importance of greenhouse gasses and their influence from 1980 to 2022, a time period from which we have good satellite data, and found that the two greenhouse gases mentioned most, CO2 and methane together contributed to less than 20% of the total temperature increase of 0.5 degree Celsius. The greenhouse gases total contributed 0.4544C or 2.164 W/m2, or well within the margin of error. However there are many more interesting causes for climate change other tnas greenhouse gases, as they occurred in the last 42 years.
My quest is by no means complete, and there are known events yet to happen that are not included, but here are the component:
1. The sun is getting warmer and will explode, but before that there will be a thermal runaway on earth.
Believe it or not, this is how Dr. James Lovelock started trying out to find when the earth’s self regulating ability would come to an end. This eventually lead to the GAIA hypothesis. It turns out that the sun gets brighter at a rate of just over 1% every 100 million years—Earth would suffer this “runaway greenhouse” in 600 million to 700 million years. In the past 42 years the warming trend would amount to a temperature increase of 0.0000003C or 0.0000014 W/m2
2. The sun has 11 year sunspot cycles with varying activity
The sun reverses its magnetic field every 11 years or so. and the sunspot intensity varies with time. 1980 was a year with maximum solar activity and 2022 was a year with less than 1/3 of the 1980 sunspot activity. The energy output from the sun at maximum sunspot activity is 1360 W/m2, but the sun only shines on half the earth at any time, and at less than 90 angles, so the net energy is 340 W/m2. The difference between solar maximum and solar minimum is about 0.07%, so the net energy decrease from the sun in 2022 from 1980 is 340 * 0.07% * 1/3 = 0.08W/m2, or 0.02C
3. The effect of the Milankovitch cycles.
We are near the end of the interglacial period, and from now on we will slowly enter a new ice age at a rate of – 1C per 2000 years.This means we were cooling down another 0.021C or 0.1 W/m2 from 1980 to 2022
4. The effect from decreasing cloud cover.
White = 100% cloud cover, Dark blue = o% cloud cover
This is a world map showing the average cloud cover in August 2009. It shows the cloud free areas of the earth in blue. Another way to look at it is to see how much total water vapor there is in the atmosphere:
Nowhere on earth can it rain out more than two inches without more humidity being transported in from another place. Over the ocean humidity gets replenished by evaporation, over land only areas that has vegetation or swamps or lakes will replenish humidity by evaporation. Keep these charts in mind for later. For now concentrate on the decreasing average cloud cover. It has only been measured for the last 40 years, but here are the results:
There are many different clouds, low, mid-level and high clouds, and they have changed differently over the same time span:
Of these clouds, the low level clouds are reflecting the most, so the 2.4% loss in average cloud cover is an assumption on the low side on the loss of reflection.
In 1984 the average cloud cover was 63.7%, in 2019, 35 years later it was 61.1%, a loss of 2.6%. over 35 years or 0.075% /year. This amounts to a loss of 3.1% from 1980 until 2022now until 2050 The total reflection from clouds and atmospheric scattering is 77 W/m2, of which 60 is from cloud reflection. A 3.1% loss of area of reflection leads to a decreasing of incoming energy of 60 * 0.031 = 1.8 W/m2 or 0.38 degree Celsius increase
Since clouds diminished, reflection and radiation from the earths surface increased by the 3.1%, which comes to 31% of 10% o f the earth’s radiation of 340 W/m2 = 1.05 W2 or 0.22 C decrease.
Total effect of clouds diminishing between 1980 and 2022 is a temperature increase of 0.16C or 0.75 W/m2.
There is a caveat to this calculations. It has so far taken only into account cloud averages, but it matters greatly if clouds appear at day or night, what time of day and what time of the year. Here is a picture from the equatorial Pacific:
The day starts out with no clouds, about 8:30 A.M. clouds start to appear, and the temperature drops while the sun is still rising. This means clouds have a negative feedback effect minimizing the temperature effect from the sun-cloud cycle. Much more could be said about that, but as an assumption the changing cloud effect reduced the temperature rise from diminishing clouds. My estimate is that the diminishing cloud effect was only two thirds of what would be expected without the negative feedback, or from 1980 to 2022 of a temperature increase of 0.11C or 0.50 W/m2.
5. The effects from air and water pollution not related to cloud formation. a. The warming of the Northern Arctic region.
North America has great rivers, none greater than the mighty Mississippi. It used to be a meandering river with frequent floods that resulted in depositing its silt over large areas and thus fertilizing the land. The American Indians living by the river moved to its new location after the water receded, and they could use the newly fertilized land. After the Louisiana purchase river traffic grew rapidly, but shifting sandbars and the excessively winding river became a problem, so the Mississippi river was converted to be the main transportation artery of the middle USA, the river banks were reinforced and the course of the river straightened. This meant that more of the silt was transported out into the Mexican Gulf, some of the silt that used to fertilize the soil instead fertilized the Mexican gulf. In addition, the Mississippi river used to be very polluted, but is now clean enough that it can be used for drinking water after treatment all the way down to Louisiana. There remains elevated concentration of nitrogen compounds so the Mexican Gulf suffers from excessive algae blooms and even red tide from time to time. This leads to more cloud formation and more rain in the United States east of the 98th meridian. This also occurs in Northern Europe, especially in the North Sea; the rivers flowing into the North Sea are rich in nutrients. The Baltic Sea was near oxygen death, but after the Baltic countries and Poland joined the EU, their rivers got partially cleaned up. In the far East the Yellow Sea and the South China sea are suffering major pollution. All these regions produce more clouds, and through prevailing winds some end up in the Arctic, where they snow out, except in the Summer when they rain out except on Greenland where it snows 12 months of the year. This leads to increasing winter temperatures of about 5.5 C above the 80th latitude, 2.5 C in spring and fall and a decrease of about 0.5 C in the summer (it takes a long time to melt that extra snow). This affects about 4% of the earth’s surface, so the total temperature increase from over-fertilizing the rivers is 0.04 * 2.5 = 0.1 C. No such effect occurs in the Antarctic. At the South Pole in the winter the air is clean, there is almost no water vapor and the winter temperature at the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station between April and September 2021, a frigid minus-78 degrees (minus-61 Celsius), was the coldest on record, dating back to 1957, and the trend is 1 C colder per century. In the summer the trend is increasing temperatures.To illustrate the current yearly temperature trend in the Arctic, see this current polar temperature chart:
Even more illustrative is the development of ice on Greenland. In 2012 it looked like all of Greenland was going to melt in less than 1000 years, and the polar ice cap would be gone altogether in late summer of 2020. The ice over Greenland is now growing ever so slightly again:
b. The effect of various air pollution.
Yes, there is rising air pollution in the world. Some result in clouds, some don’t. Here is the cloud over China:
Heavy smog has shrouded much of eastern China, and air quality levels have been dropped to extremely dangerous levels. The heavy smog is caused by industrial pollution, coal and agricultural burning, and has been trapped by the mountains to the west and wind patterns. The thick haze of smog is clearly visible as the murky gray color in this true color satellite image. NASA/NOAA
The major effect from air pollution is that it generates aerosols that act as condensation points for cloud formation if the air is oversaturated with moisture. In the last 42 years the air has gotten cleaner in the industrial west, not so in China, South Asia and Africa. The net result was a 3.1 % drop in cloud cover and the resulting temperature rise is already accounted for. There are no good worldwide analyses of ancient cloud cover, but air pollution was rising rapidly until the clean air act, enacted in 1963 was beginning to show results in the 70’s. However, ancient method of heating with coal, wood, peat and dried cowdung was far more polluting and harmful to your lungs. If U.S is eliminating all remaining coal plants the CO2 will still be rising since China is planning to build another 1070 coal burning power plants by 2030. The cloud of aerosol pollution from Pakistan to Korea did cause a temperature decrease of 0.4 W/m2 or 0.1 C.
c. The effect of greening of most of the earth.
There is one great benefit of increased CO2, the greening of the earth.
Thanks to this greening, about 15% more leaves and grass since 1982, done with only the fertilizer of CO2, the earth can now keep another 2 billion people from starvation, not to mention what good it does for plants and wildlife.
The greening of the earth will cause a temperature to increase, thanks to the lowering of the albedo of green leaves and grass rather than desert sand. In addition, with rising CO2 levels the leaves need less water to perform the photosynthesis, so the net result from lowering the albedo by 15% of 0.05 over 17% of the world leads to a warming of the earth. The average albedo on land is 30%, and 17% of the earth lowers the albedo by 15% of 0.05 this lowers the total albedo of the earth by 0.13%.
The total reflection of sunlight from the earth is 22.9 W/m2, so a lowering of the albedo of that of 0.13% leads to a temperature increase of 0.030 W/m2, or 0.0063 degree Celsius.
d. The areas that are becoming more like a desert.
Most of the earth displays an increase of leaf area, but there are areas in red that are becoming less green. The areas are: The American Southwest, The Pampas area of South America, a 100 mile band in Southern Sahara, part of East Africa, Madagascar, South East Africa, Western Australia, Part of the Volga region, Kazakhstan east of Lake Aral and various parts of China, and the Mekong river. These areas have this in common, the aquifers ate being depleted, the rivers are diminishing and some of them no longer reach the ocean, lakes are almost disappearing, but people still move to those areas “for the good climate”.
The areas so affected are about 900,000 sq miles of the American Southwest and about 3 million square miles total to suffer from becoming more like a desert. The common theme of all these areas is depletion of the aquifers, rivers diminishing, lakes drying up and soil erosion.
The only part of the world US can control directly is The American Southwest. It can expect more frequent and longer droughts, since there is no amplification of clouds from the relatively cool and clean Pacific ocean, and the long term temperature trend is cooling. The Colorado River no longer feeds the Gulf of California with nourishment. The Colorado river used to all the water allocation for all the participating states, but around 2000 the water use had caught up with supply, and since then it has become much worse with demand far outstripping supply.
In addition the Great Salt Lake is now less than a third of the size it was in the 1970’s. A second level water shortage has been issued and for example Arizona will get a million Acre-feet lass per year from the river. The aquifers will be further depleted leading to less rainfall and the few remaining springs will dry out. If nothing is done, the American southwest will become desertified.
Ironically, deserts have a higher albedo than green soil, so letting the American Southwest become a desert would have a cooling effect by the increasing albedo, but the effect from the disappearing clouds would have a far greater heating effect, so letting the American Southwest become a desert is not a solution to the problem.
However, the area subject to desertification is about 0.6% of the world’s land area and rising the albedo by 0.05 leads to a cooling down. The average albedo of the earth is 30%, and before desertification the albedo was 25%, this rises the albedo of the earth by 0.03%. The total reflection of sunlight from the earth is 22.9 W/m2, so 0.03% of that is 0.007 W/m2, 0.0015 degree Celsius.
Summary of all non-greenhouse effect causes for climate change from 1980 to 2022:
Long term warming of the sun: 0.0000005C
Temperature decrease from the Milankovitch cycle: – 0.021 C or 0.1 W/m2
Temperature decrease from changing solar spot activity – 0.021 C or 0.1 W/m2
Temperature rise from decreasing cloud cover of 0.10 C or 0.48 W/m2.
Change from temperature rise of the Arctic 0.1 C or 0.48 W/m2
Pollution aerosols cause a temperature decrease of – 0.1 C or 0.48 W/m2
Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.0063C or 0.030 W/m2
Temperature decrease from areas of desertification – 0.0015C or 0.007 W/m2.
TOTAL TEMPERATURE RISE FROM OTHER THAN GREENHOUSE GASES FROM 1980 to 2022: 0.0628 C or 0.363 W/m2
What will be the temperature in 2050 if all pledges by the Paris accord were fulfilled?
The sum of all Paris accord pledges means a 15% reduction in the RISE of C02 between now and 2030, leading to a reduction in temperature rise from rising CO2 of 0.006 C. The aspitational goal of reducing the signing countries.portion of anthropological Methane output by 50% will reduce the rise from methane by 0.0003 C In addition it will reduce the amount of temperature rise from the greening of the world by 0.0009 C. the total temperature rise will be 0.0072 C less by 2030 than if no action is taken.
By far, the strongest greenhouse gas is water vapor, not because it is very strong of itself, but it absorbs nearly all outgoing energy in the infrared spectrum except in the so called atmospheric window, where it only partially absorbs. Yet water vapor is missing from the IPCC AR6 chart seen here:
IPCC has consistently treated the effect of greenhouse gasses as additive, but it is impossible to absorb more than 100% of all emitted energy for a given wavelength. This leads to an overestimation of absorption when 2 or more gasses are present. For example, if CO2 absorbs 90% of available energy at 13 μm and water vapor another 50%, the sum is 90% + (1 -0.9} * 0.5 = 95%, not 140%
This will change the relative importance of greenhouse gasses drastically so it must be tested against reality. We now have a good global satellite temperature record from 1980 to 2022 or 43 years:
During this time the temperature rise was 0.5 C, which translates to 2.375 W/m2 ERF
Water vapor.
This is a good chart to see the relative importance of all major greenhouse gasses:
It is to be noted that water vapor also absorbs the incoming solar radiation in certain wavelengths, but solar influx is assumed to be constant.
When average temperature rises 0.5 C, the possible absorption rises by 2.375 W/m2 minus the energy that escapes through the atmospheric window.Water vapor through saturation: is responsible for all of this increase except where other gasses also absorb in the atmospheric window, and in the atmospheric window the absorption must be proportionally shared, subject to the 100% absorption limitation.The atmospheric window is about 26% of all the emitted radiation so net water absorption is 0.74 * 2.375 = 1.6 W.m2 or 0.34 C. However, the relative humidity is also decreasing, see picture:
Between 1980 and 2022 the net humidity increase is 3.6% minus 0.75% relative humidity for a net increase of 3.54%. This increase only matters in the atmospheric window which is on average 25% saturated, so the total increase from water vapor increase is 0.26 * 2.375 * 0.25 * 0.9925 = 0.15 W/m2 or 0.03 C., to be added to the total before increase in humidity.This means that for a 0.5C temperature increase between 1980 and 2022 the total sensitivity to water vapor is 1.75 W/m2 or 0.37 C
Carbon dioxide
CO2 is the strongest greenhouse gas after water vapor. The only wavelength band that is meaningful is 13 to 17.4 μm and absorption occurs from both CO2 and water vapor. Since they exist together, the effect of each of them must be proportionally allocated, or the sum of them added would exceed 100%
Between 1980 and 2022 the CO2 levels rose from 335 ppm to 415 ppm or 24% increase. The temperature increase 0.5 C. The net temperature increase or ERF in the 13 to 17.4 μm band is 0.035C or +0.17 W/m2 for the water vapor and 0.04C or +0.19 W/m2 for the CO2. To see how the calculation was made, go to Appendix 1.
Methane.
Methane gas is created from a variety of sources, both man made and natural. See pie chart
The good thing about methane is that its lifetime in the atmosphere is only 10 to 15 years, and the real contribution to climate change is only 1/5th of what is commonly advertised, since iits absorption bands occur together with partly saturated absorption from water vapor. See appendix 2.
In 1980 the CH4 concentration was 1.6 ppm and will be 2.0 ppm in 2022 which results in an increase of the greenhouse effect of 0.035 C or 0.17 W/m2 ERF from rising levels of Methane since 1980.
N2O.
Atmospheric N2Olevels averaged 336 ppb (parts per billion) during 2022, about and was 301 ppb in 1980. It is a 300 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 by itself, because its absorption is not saturated in the atmosphere. When water vapor is dominant it is diminished by over 70% since it is at the edges of the Atmospheric window. For calculations see Appendix 3.
In 1980 the N2O concentration was 0.3 ppm which results in an increase of the greenhouse effect of 0.0065 C or 0.031 W/m2 ERF from rising levels of N2O since 1980 .
Ozone.
Ozone occurs as stratospheric O3 which is good. It protects us from uv radiation. O3 in the troposphere is considered harmful if it is over 0.08% It is normally around 0,01% in the troposphere. For calculations and figures, see appendix 4.
When the earth’s temperature rises by 0.5C, from 1980 to 2022, the amount of tropospheric O3 probably rises by 2% (Lacking good data I am guessing wildly, in urban areas it may be much more, but this is global average). This comes to 0.0034C temperature increase or 0.016 W/m2 ERF from O3, from 1980 to 2022.
CFC gasses.
CFC’s are cheap and efficient gasses to use in refrigerators and air conditioners.Their use rose rapidly until it was discovered they destroyed the protective ozone layer in the stratosphere, so its use, got banned in 1994, later diminished including its use in inhalers. CFCs has since diminished slowly and is maybe already below the levels in 1980. See also Appendix 5.
HFC gasses.
HFCs replaced CFCs and are rapidly growing in use, and the compressor seals still leak. For pictures on why they are a growing concern for the future, see Appendix 6.
The temperature increase from 1980 to 2022 was 0.0015 C or 0.007 W/m2 ERF.
Summary of all greenhouse effect causes for temperature rise from 1980 until 2022:
Effect from water vapor increase: 0.37 C or 1.75 W/m2; 80.9% of total
Effect from rising CO2: 0.04C or 0.19 W/m2; 8.78% of total
Effect from rising Methane: 0.036 C or 0.17 W/m2, 7.86% of total
Effect from rising N2O: 0.0065 C or 0.031 W/m2 1.4% of total
Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0034C or 0.016 W/m2 0.7% of total
Effect from rising HFCs : 0.0015 C or 0.007 W/m2 0.3% of total
TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 1980 to 2022: 0.4544C or 2.164 W/m2
Conclusion
CO2 amounts to less than 10% if the temperature increase since 1980, and so does Methane. The green new deal is a pipe dream that does not solve the climate problem, but will make it worse.the price of lithium carbonate used in batteries has risen sixteen-fold between 2020 and late 2022. Since then, it has dropped to one third of its peak price. China has corned the market in Lithium for now. There is not enough Lithium to be economically and ecologically justifiable to mine to meet demand in the future. Since solar and wind power are intermittent supplier of electricity they can never be used as base supplier of energy. Other solutions must be offered
Actions to be taken
What congress is doing to solve the problem.
Congress has passed the anti-inflation bill that included over 300 billion to fight climate change, and it included more solar panels and wind turbine motors to be imported from China. The experience from Europe is that electricity from solar panels and windmills is 5.7 times as expensive as conventional power generation.
This analysis was done for 2019, before COVID. The situation is worse now, with electricity rares up to 80 c/kWh, topping $1 /kWh last winter in some countries before subsides.
Even at the current increased European Gas prices, the estimated excess expenditures on Weather-Dependent “Renewables” in Europe is still very large: $0.5 trillion in capital expenditures and $1.2 trillion excess expenditures in the long-term.
These simple calculations show that any claim that Wind and Solar power are now cost competitive with conventional fossil fuel (Gas-fired) generation are patently false. The figures give an outline of the financial achievements of Green activists in stopping fracking for gas in Europe, close on to $1.2 trillion of excess costs.
It would be better not to import any solar panels and wind power generators from China and let them pay for the extra cost rather than building more coal burning plants. After all they were planning to build over a thousand new plants between now and 2030, all legal under the Paris accord. This would benefit the world climate much more, since Chinese coal plants are far more polluting, since China has far less stringent environmental regulations than U.S.
U.S. uses 13.5% of the world’s coal, and eliminating U.S. CO2 emissions would in time reduce the world temperature by 0.023C, providing no other country, such as China and India would increase their use of Coal, which they are, to the total of 1300 new coal plants between now and 2030. This would raise global temperature by more than 0.06 C.
What congress should do instead.
a. What congress should do immediately.
Immediately stop downblending U 233 and pass The Thorium Energy security act SB 4242a. See more here.
2. Remove Thorium from the list of nuclear source material. The half-life of Thorium232 is 14 billion years, so its radioactivity is barely above background noise. More importantly, while Thorium is fertile, it is not fissile and should therefore not be included in the list. This would make it far easier to mine rare earth metals, as long as the ore consists of less than 0.05% Uranium, but any amount of Thorium is allowed without classifying the ore “Source material”.
3. Separate nuclear power into 3 categories. a. conventional nuclear power. b. Thorium breeder reactors that make more U233 than it consumes, and c. Thorium reactors that reduce nuclear waste.
4. Stop buying solar panels from China. Stop buying wind turbine generators from China. Let them install those in China and pay 5 times as much for their electricity.
5. Immediately form a commission led by competent people, not politicians; to decide how to best expand the electric grid and to best harden it against electro-magnetic pulses, whether solar or nuclear and to safeguard it against sabotage.
6. Remove all subsidies on electric cars, solar panels and wind generators, but continue to encourage energy conservation.
7. Encourage research and development of Thorium fueled reactors, especially liquid salt reactors by drastically simplifying and speeding up the approval process. President Trump issued an executive order in the last month of his presidency EO 13972 specifying that the United States must sustain its ability to meet the energy requirements for its national defense and space exploration initiatives. The ability to use small modular reactors will help maintain and advance United States dominance and strategic leadership across the space and terrestrial domains. This EO should be expanded to include civilian small modular reactors, including Liquid salt Thorium reactors less than 200 MW, which are the only valid reactors for space exploration.
Appendix 1, CO2
The following chart shows both CO2 and H2O are absorbing greenhouse gases, with H20 being the stronger greenhouse gas, absorbing over a much wider spectrum, and they overlap for the most part. But it also matters in what frequency ranges they absorb.
For this we will have to look at the frequency ranges of the incoming solar radiation and the outgoing black body radiation of the earth. It is the latter that causes the greenhouse effect. Take a look at this chart:
The red area represents the observed amount of solar radiation that reaches the earth’s surface. the white area under the red line represents radiation absorbed in the atmosphere. Likewise, the blue area represents the outgoing black body radiation that is not absorbed. The remaining white area under the magenta, blue or black line represents the retained absorbed energy that causes the greenhouse effect.
Let us now take a look at the Carbon Dioxide bands of absorption, at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 μm. Of them the 2.7 and 4.3 μm bands absorb where there is little black body radiation, the only band that counts is at 14.9 μm, and that is in a band where the black body radiation is near its maximum. Let us first consider the CO2 alone in a dry atmosphere, that is one with no water vapor at all. We will investigate the concentration of 335 ppm (in 1980) and 415 ppm (in 2022)
The very top line of the top black band represents total absorption at 415 ppm, the bottom of the black black band represents absorption at 335 ppm. Divide the frequency spectrum in 3 parts, below 14 μm, 14-16 μm, and above 16 μm, In the 13 to 14 μm band 66% of available energy is absorbed at 335 ppm, 70% at 415 ppm. in the 14 to 16 μm band 100% of available energy is absorbed at both 335 and 415 ppm. In the > 16 μm the numbers are also 66 and 70%. In addition, temperature is 0.5 C higher at 415 than at 335 ppm, so available energy is 0.7 % higher at 415 ppm.
The net result is greenhouse gas contribution for CO2 is 5.10 C at 335 ppm and 5.26 C at 415 ppm and 1.5C higher ambient temperature for a dry atmosphere.
The normal way to account for greenhouse gasses contribution is to simply add together the CO2 contribution and the contribution from water vapor. This leads to the wrong result for in doing so, the total result is more than 100% for some energy band, because it is impossible to add more than 100% of all available energy for a given wavelength. Again, the spectrum of interest is 13 to 17.4 μm.
The first thing to notice is that no absorption exceeds 100% , so at 14.9 μm wavelength CO2 absorbed 100%, and water vapor absorbed another 75%, the total sum is still 100%. It is impossible to absorb more than 100% of the total energy available for that wavelength. Therefore between the wavelengths 14 and 16 μm all energy was absorbed regardless of CO2 concentration and water vapor concentration. The only fair way to allocate the absorption is proportionally, 57% to CO2 and 43% to water vapor. Likewise, the 13 to 14 μm band is not fully saturated, so the total absorption is 62% of available energy for CO2 and 33% for water vapor. In the 16 to 17.4 μm range the total absorption is 44% for CO2 and 55 % for water vapor. For CO2 at 335 ppm and average temp 13.5 C the total temperature rise, when proportionally allocated comes to 2.73 C for the CO2 and 2.30 C for the water vapor. For CO2 at 415 ppm and an average temp 0.5 C higher, at 14 C average the net temperature increase or ERF in the 13 to 17.4 μm band is 0.035C or +0.17 W/m2 for the water vapor and 0.04C or +0.19 W/m2 for the CO2.
Appendix 2, Methane
Atmospheric methanelevels averaged 2.0 ppm (parts per million) during 2022, or around 25% greater than in 1980. It is a 28 times stronger greenhouse gas by itself unlike CO2, because its absorption is not saturated in the atmosphere. On the other hand the lifetime of Methane in the atmosphere is 10 to 15 years, some of the Methane eating bacteria will do its job. There is only one significant absorption band that absorbs in the atmospheric window at 7.7 μm, at the edge of the atmospheric window.
The picture shows a small peak at 7.7μm. This is because at lower wavelengths absorption from water vapor has nearly eliminated the CH4 contribution. Remember that total absorption can never exceed 100 %, so the maximum absorption from CH4 occurs at 7.7μm. At 1.6 ppm it amounts to a greenhouse effect of 0.68 C for a dry gas.
The only major absorption line at 7.7 μm has two side lobes, at 7.5 and 7.9 μm. In the 7.5 μm sideband water vapor already absorbs nearly all energy, so the NH4 is of little effect. In the 7.9 μm sideband water vapor is 50% saturated at that level and the NH4 net absorption is 20% the net greenhouse effect is one fifth of the effect for a dry gas, or 0.14 C. In 1980 the CH4 concentration was 1.6 ppm and will be 2.0 ppm in 2022 which results in an increase of the greenhouse effect of 0.035 C or 0.17 W/m2 ERF from rising levels of Methane since 1980
Appendix 3, N2O.
Atmospheric N2Olevels averaged 336 ppb (parts per billion) during 2022, about and was 301 ppb in 1980. It is a 300 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 by itself, because its absorption is not saturated in the atmosphere. When water vapor is dominant it is diminished by over 70% since it is at the edges of the Atmospheric window. On the other hand the lifetime of N20 in the atmosphere is short and is typically greatest at 5 p.m. One of the major reasons for the N2O increase is the increase of fertilization with nitrates, the other is from diesel fumes from trains, boats, ships, trucks and mining equipment
The picture shows a double N2O peak at 7.4 and 7.8 μm. . At 0.336 ppm in 2022it amounts to a greenhouse effect of 0.325 C for a dry gas. In the 7.4 μm band water vapor is saturated, in the 7.8 μm band 80% is saturated by water vapor.In 1980 the N2O concentration was 0.3 ppm which results in an increase of the greenhouse effect of 0.0065 C or 0.031 W/m2 ERF from rising levels of N2O since 1980 .
N2O is commonly called laughing gas, and is hazardous in high concentrations, and should be limited in confined places, but in concentrations of under 1 ppm nobody laughs because of that.
Appendix 4, Ozone.
Ozone or 03 is good if it is in the stratosphere. There it helps to absorb the ultraviolet and cosmic rays from the sun and other cosmic radiation. Ozone is bad if it is near the ground. The total proportion of O3 in the troposphere is about 0.01 ppm, yet it is a substantial greenhouse gas because it forms by uv radiation in the stratosphere and mesosphere, and thus protecting us from uv damage. See figure:
The O3 in the troposphere on the other hand is bad. It is normally around 0.01 ppm, but is considered damaging if people are exposed to more than 0.08 ppm in an 8 hour period. This can happen in urban environments in warm and stagnant weather, typically through car traffic. It is a great greenhouse gas because its main absorption band is at 9.5 μm, right in the atmospheric window where the outgoing black body radiation is the greatest. See fig:
The dotted blue line at 9.5 μm represents the tropospheric absorption, the total absorption is between the brown and the solid blue line. The total greenhouse effect from O3 is 0.88C, but the stratosphere does not interact very much with the troposphere, so the stratospheric O3 does not count as a greenhouse gas, only tropospheric O3. The total contribution to the greenhouse effect from tropospheric O3 is about 1/5 of the total, because atmospheric O2 absorbs in the same band limits the temperature rise to 0.17C When the earth’s temperature rises by 0.5C, from 1980 to 2022, the amount of tropospheric O3 probably rises by 2% (Lacking good data I am guessing wildly, in urban areas it may be much more, but this is global average). This comes to 0.0035C temperature increase or 0.016 W/m2 ERF from O3, from 1980 to 2022.
Appendix 5, CFC gasses.
ChloroFluoroCarbon (CFC) gasses started to be manufactured at the beginning of the refrigeration age, replacing ice as the refrigerant. It soon appeared in the atmosphere, mostly due to leaks in the air conditioner compressor seals. It didn’t amount to much as a greenhouse gas even though it was five thousand times more efficient than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It was discovered that CFCs ate up the Ozone in the stratosphere, and if it continued to increase it could deplete the protective Ozone layer faster than it could be produced. In fact it created an Ozone hole over Antarctica. So it got forbidden Jan 17, 1994, In 2020 even China stopped production. Since 1994 CFC are decreasing by about 1% per year, but cheating persisted, especially among poorer nations and China. By 2022 it will probably have a greenhouse effect of 0.01C or 0,05 W/m2 ERF.
Appendix 6, HFC gases.
CFC started to be phased out and replaced by HydroFluoroCarbons (HFC), less efficient and more expensive, but at least they do not deplete the Ozone layer that protects us from cancer. Some of the HFCs are even bigger greenhouse effect generators than CFC, but well worth it to protect the Ozone layer. Their biggest absorption bands are in the middle of the atmospheric window.
If nothing is done to control them they will increase from nothing in 1980 until 2022 and beyond. See fig: NOAA Research News
The temperature increase from 1980 to 2022 was 0.0014 C or 0.007 W/m2 ERF..
Len Bilén's blog, a blog about faith, politics and the environment. 