Paris Accord: What State of the Climate

2016 says

Tuesday, 5 September 2017

State of the Climate 2016 (SOC-16) is a 298-page document published by the

American Meteorological Society. It is based on contributions from about 500
scientists from 60 countries unfortunately none from Sri Lanka and thousands
of data sets.

It was released online on 8 August 2017 giving valuable information on how 40

climate variables have changed during 2016. I have been studying this since 2010
and waiting for the 2016 report to check the validity of some of the arguments I
have been advocating since of late.

CO2 vs. NFW hypotheses

Current day climate change theories are based on the following hypotheses.

1.Although water vapour is the most influential greenhouse gas in atmosphere,

any new water vapour entering the atmosphere will not increase the greenhouse
effect of the atmosphere as it would condense in a few weeks.

2.CO2 and other greenhouse gases (primary stimulants) entering the atmosphere
anew spend more time in the atmosphere and increase the greenhouse effect of
the atmosphere and water vapour (secondary stimulant) entering the atmosphere
to maintain constant relative humidity at the elevated temperature (first
temperature increase due to primary stimulants) will stay there and exert an
additional greenhouse effect and further increase temperature (second
temperature increase due to secondary stimulant).

But these theories are silent about the Newly Formed Water (NFW) vapour arising
from the combustion of oil and gas containing about two and four atoms
respectively of hydrogen for each atom of carbon (Table 8.1 in Sustainable Energy
by Prof. Jefferson Tester, et al).

I call this Newly Formed Water because this was not available as water in the
global water cycle earlier. Even the IGSM 2 Model put out by the MIT Joint
Programme on Science and Policy of Global Change has not included NFW in its
stream from Human System to Earth System. One important aspect of this NFW is
that it enters the atmosphere along with CO2 from the same oil and gas
combustion and hence will remain behind in the atmosphere.

If you look at, as per climate scientists, doubling CO2 concentration from 280 ppm
to 560 ppm, the primary stimulant increases temperature by 1.20C and the
secondary stimulant by another 1.60C, totalling up to the well-known 2.80C
increase. My contention with NFW is that NFW acts as a primary stimulant,
bringing in a secondary stimulant stream resulting in two sets of temperature
increases only.

In 2015, we have generated 43,000 TW hrs from coal, 50,000 TWhrs from oil and
36,000 TWhrs from gas and corresponding outcomes from these along the above
line of thought are given below. This is about a 4% drop from 2011 for coal, an
11% increase for oil and a 33% increase for gas resulting in an 8.0% increase in
CO2, 21% increase in NFW to meet the 9.6% increase in total energy from fossil
fuels. A 21% increase in NFW to achieve a 1.6% decrease in CO2.

State of the Climate 2016 explained on this basis

We intend to explain some of the 33 parameters mentioned in page S2 using this

NFW hypothesis. This will help readers to assess NFWs contribution towards
climate change vis--vis CO2 from the same fossil fuels, etc.

i. Surface temperature

If we look at a possible value for temperature increase based on the previously

mentioned 2.80 C due to a 280 ppm increase and 3.5 ppm CO2 increase in 2011,
we will arrive at a figure of 0.0350 C. We agree that (a) direct comparisons cannot
be made based on ppm levels of CO2 and (b) as the CO2 level increases the
temperature increase for a given CO2 increase reduces; but the current CO2 ppm
level is about halfway between 280 and 560 and if at all it differs from 0.0350C, it
could only be much less. But SOC 16 says that the temperature increase is around
0.01-0.120 C above the previous maximum observed in 2015.This is in spite of the
11-year solar cycle crossing the maximum (Note Total Solar Irradiance dropped by
0.10Wm-2 in 2016).

This implies that the global temperature will indicate a downward trend in the
next five-six years as has been the case with the second half of the earlier 11-year
solar cycles, if oil and gas consumptions do not increase significantly.

The NFW approach yields a temperature increase of 0.0680 C due to products of

combustion from fossil fuels and when other effects from deforestation, highway
construction, etc. are taken into consideration it may be much more. Once these
are adjusted for their reduced sensitivities to increases in greenhouse gas
concentrations, we will arrive at a temperature closer to the observed values.
ii. Extreme warm days

This graph depicts that in 2016 we have experienced about 18% extremely warm
days above the 1961-1990 level and these drought conditions were of unusually
long durations. Both these extreme phenomena can be more easily explained
using NFW rather than with only CO2.

The NFW approach implies there is more water vapour in the atmosphere rather
than using only the CO2 approach, and normal seasonal changes may not be able
to bring the temperature down adequately due to this water vapour to condense
all the water vapour and bring drought to a close. Anyhow, with temperatures
coming down more with the solar cycle effect, droughts in the next few years will
be comparatively shorter; unless of course a lot more oil and gas is used to
replace coal.

iii. Precipitation

Precipitation increased by about 20 mm (or was it 40 mm) during 2016 in a setup

which also experienced a temperature increase of 0.01-0.120C.

When somebody consumes 1 litre (0.8 kg) of gasoline in a vehicle, he or she also
generates 1.03 kg or 1 litre of NFW (secondary school level Chemistry) in addition
to which another three litres of water is brought into the atmosphere to maintain
constant relative humidity. This implies that at least 25% of precipitation from oil
and gas is due to NFW and this would be true even if this NFW condenses only
after a short residence time of a few weeks as suggested by current beliefs. And
this also should mean that there will be continuous rain and the mere fact that
this is not how we experience precipitation implies that there is spatial and
temporal accumulation of NFW in the atmosphere. With the 11-year solar cycle
entering its downward half of the cycle, we should expect more precipitation in
the coming few years which should offer reminders of the precipitation and
floods in 2010-11.

iv. Humidity
The relative humidity of the land area has remained within 1.5% level while that
above the oceans has remained within an even lesser range. So the assumption
about constant relative humidity has been valid. Humidity has increased by
around 1% during the year (total column water vapour has increased by about
0.25 mm from the average value of 25 mm). If we assume that additional water
vapour has come into atmosphere only to maintain constant relative humidity
corresponding to 0.0350 C resulting from CO2-based temperature increase
computations, the increase in humidity should have been only 0.245%.

v. Land wind speed and tropical cyclones

This again has been increasing during 2016 and even here NFW will influence the
increase more than CO2. If you look at viscosities of O2 (the gas NFW replaces in
atmosphere on a 8:9 basis), N2, CO2 and NFW they are in the ratio of
25:22:19:13. The SOC 16 also says there had been 93 named tropical cyclones in
2016 and if you look at the six reasons which would prompt the formation of a
cyclone, five of them are instigated by NFW and the sixth is a latitude-related
reason.

vi. Radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere

The SOC Reports also shows how the radiation budget at the top of atmosphere
has changed in that year. I have been following this since 2010 and the
corresponding changes since then are given in the table.

When Kiehl and Trentberth published their original Mean Energy Budget Diagram
(shown below) they made the three statements given below. These are important
in understanding the diagram and interpreting the SOC 16 section on this
Radiation Budget.

a. 78 Wm-2 stream due to evapo-transpiration has been calculated as the latent

heat due to 1000 mm of annual rainfall.

b. 24Wm-2 Thermals flow from the earth is calculated by carrying out an energy
balance.

c. In some years the oceans might absorb a certain amount of heat to balance the
system.

These changes show that TSI has recorded a negative change for the first time
(during the last seven years) in 2016.

If one looks at normal solar cycles in the past, they generally involve a TSI increase
of about 0.5Wm-2 in about five-six years; since the cycle has displayed a
minimum in 2006, there seems to be an abnormality in this process. Reduction of
0.10Wm-2 in 2016 may be indication that the solar cycle has passed the
maximum point. It may also indicate that we should expect increased
precipitation in the next few years.

In the SOC 2015 document it was mentioned that the interannual variabilities
are 50, 0.20 and 0.40 Wm-2 respectively for OLR, TSI and RSW. If we use these
figures for the changes in these three flow rates, the only flow rate which has
shown a variation outside these limits is RSW which has shown two positive
changes and one negative change. The increase in RSW in 2012-2013 could be
due to the increase in surface albedo during the period and the increase in 2009-
2010 had been in spite of a decrease in surface albedo.

This could be due to an increase in cloud formation related to enhanced

precipitation experienced in Thailand, Australia, etc. The only product of
combustion of fossil fuels which could influence RSW both positively and
negatively is NFW which could increase RSW due to cloud formation and reduce
RSW due to a phenomenon like atmospheric rivers.

Coming to the OLR, the parameter has not shown a significant variation according
to SOC- 2015. SOC 16 says that the increase in OLR is due to the El Nino effect.
This increase could also be due to increased precipitation of 20 mm and if we use
the same logic as in the original Kiehl and Trentberth Diagram, increased
precipitation could result in an increase of 1.5Wm-2 in OLR.
An overall comment

We have looked at some parameters indicated in SOC-16 and have found that
variations in a larger number of parameters could be explained using NFW formed
by the combustion of fossil fuels like oil and gas.

This ever-increasing consumption of oil and gas will lead to a future where we will
be unable to control the ever increasing precipitation, leading to many a flood
associated with landslides, etc. We in Sri Lanka lost more than 300 lives during the
floods in the early part of this year and India and Nepal are experiencing greater
floods which have killed more than 500 are affecting millions at the moment. We
mentioned the USs experiences in 2016 earlier. The 2 September 2013 issue of
Fortune magazine carried 17 photographs of flood-affected scenes from different
countries showing clearly that precipitation-related disasters will not spare any
country due to its level of sophistication nor its awareness of climate change
aspects.

The solution

The most appropriate solution for these disasters will obviously be one which will
reduce usage of fossil fuels oil and gas and at the same time favourably influence
changes in the above mentioned energy flows crossing Top of Atmosphere. For
the luck of mankind, there is one solution which fulfils these requirements.

We call this solution highway solarisation which means, A dedicated

infrastructure for generating electricity for supply to the main grid and/or
powering battery electric vehicles using solar energy collected by PV solar panels
installed along and above the highways as a solution for climate change. It will
definitely reduce CO2, NFW and waste heat from gas and oil combustion.

Then there is the case of RSW and land surface albedo. One phenomenon which
reduces RSW and land surface albedo is the construction of highways which
basically involves reduction in vegetation followed by laying a tarred surface on
top of that. Highway solarisation will reduce this and for every kWhr of energy
generated and provided to the main grid or a battery electric vehicle, it will also
eliminate 1.4 kWhrs of absorbed solar energy leading to global warming.

If our explanation of OLR increase is right, use of Highway Solarisation to generate

energy eliminating the use of oil or gas will reduce generation of NFW and hence
the latent heat. This will influence the OLR favourably. Right now TSI is in a
downward trend and if we establish enough projects based on Highway
Solarisation during the next five-six years, we can establish more and more
projects when the upward trend in TSI sets in, and reduce the impact of
increasing TSI on our energy budget.

Conclusion

We have interpreted the findings in the latest State of the Climate 2016
document using a new approach which considers Newly Formed Water (NFW)
due to hydrogen present in oil and gas and found out that these explanations
provide more plausible interpretations.

We have also explained changes in energy flow rates crossing Top of Atmosphere.
We have also outlined a solution to generate energy without generating both CO2
and NFW and explained how this solution will reduce the impact of changes in
these energy flow rates on the Global Energy System.

We are happy that President Donald Trump brought the Paris Accord enhancing
usage of gas to reduce CO2 emissions from coal - into the limelight, giving us an
opportunity to re-examine it. As one can see from the figures given above, that
would have resulted in bringing more NFW into the atmosphere and this NFW
would have (i) increased temperature further when in the air, (ii) created
enormous havoc in the form of cyclones, hurricanes while coming down and
(iii)created flooding, landslides, etc. when on the ground.

Anybody implementing the Paris Accord; yes, we are also building Noahs Ark.
(The writer is the Managing Director of Somaratna Consultants Ltd.)
Posted by Thavam