Atmospheric Composition and Vertical Structure

Appendix A INTENSITIES AND PRESSURES OF THE SOUND IN SEA AND IN AIR Water density: 1.020 kg/m3, Sound speed: 1.530 m/s, Reference pressure: 10-6 N/m2 (Pa) = 1uPa dB 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280

W/m2 3,204E-19 3,204E-18 3,204E-17 3,204E-16 3,204E-15 3,204E-14 3,204E-13 3,204E-12 3,204E-11 3,204E-10 3,204E-09 3,204E-08 3,204E-07 3,204E-06 3,204E-05 3,204E-04 3,204E-03 3,204E-02 3,204E-01 3,204E+00 3,204E+01 3,204E+02 3,204E+03 3,204E+04 3,204E+05 3,204E+06 3,204E+07 3,204E+08 3,204E+09

W/cm2 3,204E-23 3,204E-22 3,204E-21 3,204E-20 3,204E-19 3,204E-18 3,204E-17 3,204E-16 3,204E-15 3,204E-14 3,204E-13 3,204E-12 3,204E-11 3,204E-10 3,204E-09 3,204E-08 3,204E-07 3,204E-06 3,204E-05 3,204E-04 3,204E-03 3,204E-02 3,204E-01 3,204E+00 3,204E+01 3,204E+02 3,204E+03 3,204E+04 3,204E+05

N/m2=Pa 1,000E-06 3,162E-06 1,000E-05 3,162E-05 1,000E-04 3,162E-04 1,000E-03 3,162E-03 1,000E-02 3,162E-02 1,000E-01 3,162E-01 1,000E+00 3,162E+00 1,000E+01 3,162E+01 1,000E+02 3,162E+02 1,000E+03 3,162E+03 1,000E+04 3,162E+04 1,000E+05 3,162E+05 1,000E+06 3,162E+06 1,000E+07 3,162E+07 1,000E+08

uPa 1,000E+00 3,162E+00 1,000E+01 3,162E+01 1,000E+02 3,162E+02 1,000E+03 3,162E+03 1,000E+04 3,162E+04 1,000E+05 3,162E+05 1,000E+06 3,162E+06 1,000E+07 3,162E+07 1,000E+08 3,162E+08 1,000E+09 3,162E+09 1,000E+10 3,162E+10 1,000E+11 3,162E+11 1,000E+12 3,162E+12 1,000E+13 3,162E+13 1,000E+14

Table A.1 Intensities and pressures of sound in sea

1

bar 1,000E-11 3,162E-11 1,000E-10 3,162E-10 1,000E-09 3,162E-09 1,000E-08 3,162E-08 1,000E-07 3,162E-07 1,000E-06 3,162E-06 1,000E-05 3,162E-05 1,000E-04 3,162E-04 1,000E-03 3,162E-03 1,000E-02 3,162E-02 1,000E-01 3,162E-01 1,000E+00 3,162E+00 1,000E+01 3,162E+01 1,000E+02 3,162E+02 1,000E+03

Air density:1,239 kg/m3, Sound speed: 340 m/s, Reference pressure: 2*10-5 N/m2 (Pa) = 20 uPa dB 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280

W/m2 4,748E-13 4,748E-12 4,748E-11 4,748E-10 4,748E-09 4,748E-08 4,748E-07 4,748E-06 4,748E-05 4,748E-04 4,748E-03 4,748E-02 4,748E-01 4,748E+00 4,748E+01 4,748E+02 4,748E+03 4,748E+04 4,748E+05 4,748E+06 4,748E+07 4,748E+08 4,748E+09 4,748E+10 4,748E+11 4,748E+12 4,748E+13 4,748E+14 4,748E+15

W/cm2 4,748E-17 4,748E-16 4,748E-15 4,748E-14 4,748E-13 4,748E-12 4,748E-11 4,748E-10 4,748E-09 4,748E-08 4,748E-07 4,748E-06 4,748E-05 4,748E-04 4,748E-03 4,748E-02 4,748E-01 4,748E+00 4,748E+01 4,748E+02 4,748E+03 4,748E+04 4,748E+05 4,748E+06 4,748E+07 4,748E+08 4,748E+09 4,748E+10 4,748E+11

N/m2=Pa 2,000E-05 6,325E-05 2,000E-04 6,325E-04 2,000E-03 6,325E-03 2,000E-02 6,325E-02 2,000E-01 6,325E-01 2,000E+00 6,325E+00 2,000E+01 6,325E+01 2,000E+02 6,325E+02 2,000E+03 6,325E+03 2,000E+04 6,325E+04 2,000E+05 6,325E+05 2,000E+06 6,325E+06 2,000E+07 6,325E+07 2,000E+08 6,325E+08 2,000E+09

uPa 2,000E+01 6,325E+01 2,000E+02 6,325E+02 2,000E+03 6,325E+03 2,000E+04 6,325E+04 2,000E+05 6,325E+05 2,000E+06 6,325E+06 2,000E+07 6,325E+07 2,000E+08 6,325E+08 2,000E+09 6,325E+09 2,000E+10 6,325E+10 2,000E+11 6,325E+11 2,000E+12 6,325E+12 2,000E+13 6,325E+13 2,000E+14 6,325E+14 2,000E+15

Table A.1 Intensities and pressures of sound in air Source: (A.A.1),

2

bar 2,000E-10 6,325E-10 2,000E-09 6,325E-09 2,000E-08 6,325E-08 2,000E-07 6,325E-07 2,000E-06 6,325E-06 2,000E-05 6,325E-05 2,000E-04 6,325E-04 2,000E-03 6,325E-03 2,000E-02 6,325E-02 2,000E-01 6,325E-01 2,000E+00 6,325E+00 2,000E+01 6,325E+01 2,000E+02 6,325E+02 2,000E+03 6,325E+03 2,000E+04

Appendix B INFLUENCE OF AN AIR GUN TO THE ROCK LAYERS ON THE SEA FLOOR Let’s imagine that 1 km under the sea level lies on the 45 degree sloping undersea mountain another layer of rocks. This layer has a volume of 0,1 km3 and the surface, with which it lays on the bottom massive, measures 1 km2. Therefore the rock layer is 100 m thick. The hard rock has a specific weight of approximately 28 N/dm3, therefore the entire layer would have to weight 2,8*1012 N (it has a mass of 280 million tons). But this layer is in water, which acts to it (lifts it) with buoyant force, respectively with its own weight of the same volume. Therefore the weight of the rock layer in water is smaller - FG = 1,8*1012 N. Further because of sloping terrain the rock layer presses to its grounding with smaller static force. FS = FG * sin45 = 1,27*1012 N Because of 45 degrees angle also the dynamic weight component, which pulls the rock layer downward the slope, is equal FD = FS. The force, which holds the rock layer on the slope, is static friction, which must be larger as FD that the layer stays there. The force of static friction appears because of pressure of the rock layer to the entire surface, with which both massifs are in contact. It deals: FF = kF*FS The friction coefficient kF is very dependant from irregularities, respectively roughness of the contact surface. If this surface is enough smooth and kF enough small, the friction force will become smaller from dynamic weight FD and the rock layer will slip. At this angle the slip will happen, if kF is smaller than 1. Let’s calculate in our case the pressure of the rock layer to the bottom massive. In all points of contacts surface it is certainly not the same, but we can get the average pressure from the layer weight: P = FS / 1km2 = 1,27*1012N / 106m2 = 12,7 bar For imagination, this is only 6 times higher pressure as in the car pneumatics, or the pressure, which we feel 130 m under the sea surface. But because the rock layer is 1000 m under the sea level, to it acts still additional pressure, approximately 100 bars because of the weight of 1 km high water tower, which also through the rock layer presses to the contact surface. The static component

3

of this pressure is again for the angle factor (sin45) smaller, therefore 71 bars. The common pressure between both rock massifs is therefore 84 bars. On this place we will avoid calculating of static friction, respectively searching of kF, because this is probably also for experts a demanding task. We will try to estimate the pressure, which appears on the contact surface because of sound waves, and infer if this pressure can influence to the common friction force and lower it so much that the layer would slip.

The pressure of striking waves from air guns A field of air guns can generate today a sound strike with the intensity up to 260 dB. The sound waves of such power can penetrate tenths of kilometres deep into sea floor and with reflections from different layers bring data about geological composition of the floor. Decibel (dB) is a relative logarithmic measurement unit and it always refers to some reference value. In electronic it is used many times to express amplification or attenuation of a signal through certain electronic circuit, for example, A = 20*log(UOUT/UINP). In the case of sound in the air is this reference value the absolute intensity of the sound (power of the waveform through the unit plane), which the man sill hears (J0 = 4,7*10-17 W/cm2, what means the reference pressure of P0 = 20 uPa). 10 dB represents 10 times higher and 20 dB 100 times higher intensity 4,7*10 -15 W/cm2. We see that linear increasing of dB in reality represents exponential increasing of absolute sound intensity. 100 dB represents therefore 4,7*10-6 W/cm2. For our imagination upon sound intensity is dB better unit, because also our audibility behaves logarithmically – we have feeling that 100 dB represents approximately 2 times louder sound as 50 dB, but in reality is intensity increasing between 50 and 100 dB no less than 100.000 fold. If we go forward, at 130 dB the human ear suffer the permanent injuries and loss of hearing. At 190 dB is the sound power per cm2 already 0,5 kW, but at 260 dB unimaginable 5.109 W, respectively 5 GW. In such power class work the largest hydro power plants on the world with all their generators. The difference is of course that the plant operating with this power is permanent, and the sound shot from air gun lasts only a small part of the second. At representation of sound intensity with dB we must also take care because in the water is as reference value used the pressure P0 = 1 uPa, what means at 0 dB reference sound intensity 3,2*10-23 W/cm2. Therefore the decibel tables for air and water are shifted for about 10 -6, respectively for 60 dB. The same value of dB in water represents about million times lower sound intensity as in the air. The tables with values of sound intensities, decibels and corresponding pressures for air and water are given in Appendix A.

4

The sound waves expand from the source over the space and lose their power. This happens because of:  Overcoming the acoustic resistance of the material (air, water, rock), because the waves cause (waves actually are) material squeezing and expanding. The losses of wave power are larger in denser materials.  Expanding waves in all direction of the space (or surface). From almost point source the wave surface (circumference) with travelling increases in the form of growing sphere. The energy which had the wave near the source, expand through the space and wave intensity weakens approximately linearly with increasing of the wave surface. Only with special formed sources it is possible to send waves more in defined direction.  Reflection of waves from borders (surfaces) of differently dense materials and even from different warm layers of the same material, into which the waves expand. For example, at passing from water into rock, more than 80% of power is lost. But the reflected waves stay in the first material, under different angles travel back, reflect again from former layers, react with other direct or already reflected waves and create other forms of waving. Originally relative simple picture of basic waves becomes very complex. The website (1.3.21) tells that at shooting with air guns the sound intensity lowers on the distance of 1 km to approximately 190 dB. This means lowering the absolute intensity as much as for the factor 107 (from 1010 to 103 W/cm2). From photo in the source (1.3.22) we see that a field of 8 air guns is mounted on the frame of approximately 2 x 4 metres, Therefore the surface, on which we get under the air guns the maximal intensity of the sound, measures about 10 m2. Suppose that larger fields of 32 air guns, with which we achieve 260 dB, generate this intensity on approximately 50 m2. The relation to the surface of the wave hemisphere on the distance of 1 km is: S1km / S1m = 6,28*106m2 /50m2 = 1,26*105 For such factor lowers also the absolute sound intensity, in our case from 3,2*103 W/cm2 at 260 dB to 2,6*10-2 W/cm2. This intensity gives about 205 dB. Less dB (toward 190) we get, if we reduce the surface, on which acts the maximal intensity, for example with mounting all 32 air guns back to 10 m2. In this case we get on the distance 1 km the absolute intensity of 5,09 W/cm2, what is still more than 200 dB. Seemingly the difference between 190 and 200 dB is not big, but it is 10 fold in real waving power, and for the hiding the actual circumstances still how very important.

5

The source (1.3.23) includes arrangements of two known air gun fields. At larger field (Kondor with 31 guns) the dimensions of the field were 15 x 10 m, therefore on the surface of 150 m2. From maximal given pressure in the graph 6*106 Pa we get according to Appendix A the maximal sound intensity more than 250 dB, while the article also gives the intensity of theoretical point source of 261 dB. With considering 250 dB on 150 m2 big surface we get on 1 km distance still more than 200 dB of relative sound intensity.

Attenuation of the even wave An even wave, which travels through a certain material segment, weakens exponentially. The surface, on which the wave loses its energy doesn’t change (increase) and the losses of sound energy depend only on the material characteristics. On the distance X from the source (intensity JS) is the attenuated intensity J(X) = JS * e(-βX), where the β is the coefficient of acoustic attenuation (1/β is the characteristic distance, on which appears the attenuation for the factor e = 2,7…). The website (1.3.24) gives us the graph of linear sound attenuation in salt water in dependence on the sound frequency. At low frequencies around 10 Hz we see that the attenuation lowers to 2*10-6 dB/km. At still lower frequencies, which interest us in connection with air guns and earthquakes, is therefore the attenuation of sound in water because of water acoustic resistance, in comparison with losing power because of expanding waves through the space, entirely negligible.

Reflection of waves from the sea floor When the sound waving at its travelling through a certain material comes to the border (surface), with which this material touches to another substance, part of the waving is reflected back into the first material, and a part is absorbed by the second substance and transferred forward. How high are both these two parts, depends on characteristics of both substances (acoustic impedance is the product of material density and speed of sound wave travelling through it; z = ρ * c) and on the angle, under which the waves fall to the contact surface. At the perpendicular movement (incidence angle = 0) the part of reflected waving (intensity) is: R = (z2 – z1) / (z2 + z1)

6

At the incidence angles, larger than 0, the formula is a little more complex and deals up to the angles, where the total reflection of waveform appears.

where: n = (c2/c1)2 The website (1.3.25) offers the basic data for calculation of sound reflection in the sea water. From the table in this source we get already acoustic impedance for sediment (clay, sand), from which at consideration material density of about 2.500 kg/m3 we calculate the speed of expanding waveforms through sediment 3.100 m/sec. Let's calculate the coefficient of reflected waveforms for surface between water and granite sea floor, respectively between water and sediment, which is more probable situation, and which we will use in continuation. We see that the sediment is because of its lower solidness more acceptable for sound absorption. Incidence angle (degrees) 0

Reflection coeficient R (%) 0,667

5 10 15 20 25

0,670 0,681 0,700 0,734 0,795

Table B.1 The reflection coefficient between salt water and sea sediment Incidence angle (degrees) 0 5 10 15

Reflection coeficient R (%) 0,824 0,833 0,861 0,949

Table B.2 The reflection coefficient between salt water and granite

7

Expanding sound through rock layer Because of distance of 1 km from source (air guns) the sound waves fall on the sea floor almost in the even plane, let's suppose that this part of the waveform will expand through our rock layer into its 100 m depth as an even wave. As we have said before, the even waves attenuate exponentially. On the website (1.3.26) we get in a graph data about size of absorption coefficient β for different sound frequencies and different materials on the sea floor. At very low frequencies 0,1 to 10 Hz we see that the values are around 10-5 per metre, what means that intensity of the sound waveform at these frequencies lowers for factor 2,7 only after 100.000 m (100 km). Of course, the energy is being lost much faster because of expanding in all directions of the space. But our rock layer is enough small part in this space, through which the waves don't lose their form. We can conclude that the sound, which enters into the layer of rock or of sediment, will not attenuate during its expansion to the 100 m distant bottom contact surface of the layer. Because of appearing waveforms on the contact surface begins with the same frequency to change the pressure of the rock layer on its grounding. Let's repeat here a little more accurately the already asked question, if these changes can be big enough that in negative direction of every swing they lower the static pressure of sloped layer on the grounding so much that friction becomes smaller than dynamic weight component, and that the layer slips? Let's make here one more simplification – the rock layer (still sloped for 45 degree) shall lay only about 700 m deep, so that the sound waves fall to it perpendicularly, under angle of 45 degrees from vertical and 1 km from sound source. The basic results of all former calculations are the following:   



The weight of the water above rock layer is smaller and static pressure component, together because of rock weight comes about 63 bars. The sound intensity, which falls on the rock layer, is 3,2*10-3 W/cm2 at 200 dB. This causes effective pressure of 0,1 bar. 80 % of sound waveform energy reflect from the granite layer because of perpendicular incidence (angle = 0). Waveforms enter in the granite the with intensity of about 6,4*10-4 W/cm2, which is still more than 190 dB, and with the same intensity it comes through the rock layer. Let's imagine that the grounding of our rock layer has a similar composition, and because of this not a lot of wave power reflects. The calculated sound intensity between both rock layers causes the effective pressure of 0,05 bar and oscillations with amplitude 0,07 bar.

8

Appendix C THE PRESSURES OF SEISMIC WAVES Let's look what pressure appears at oscillation with acceleration of 1G. Take a sediment mass element, a cube of 1 dm3. On this element acts the same pressure of seismic waves, as on all other mass of sediment. At real seismic oscillation the force to this mass element, the speed, acceleration and displacement of the element change (repeat) cyclically. For simpler overview and calculations we use at cyclic events so called effective values, which tell what effect has some repeating quantity. Also the given spectral accelerations are the effective values. The effective force and pressure, which act to this mass element, we calculate from the acceleration: Fef = m * aef = 2kg * 10m/s2 = 20N Pef = Fef / 1dm2 = 20N/dm2 = 2.000Pa If the resonant frequency is 1 Hz, acts the force Fef in the time of half period (0,5 sec) in one direction. In this time makes the mass elements the distance: L = aef * t2 = 10m/s2 * (0,5s)2 = 2,5m This means that the seismic waves with frequency, which cause the material acceleration of 1G, actually move the ground for 2,5 metres in one and other direction…!! In which direction (horizontally or vertically) depends of course on that, which waves are represented by acceleration measurements. At real earthquake swings in the same direction much more material as one single mass element. The speed of expanding seismic waves in sediments is between 3.000 and 5.000 m/sec, and that means that the wave thickness will travel at the wave frequency of 1 Hz in 1 second about 4 km far. In this case 4 km is also the wave length of the seismic wave. Further this means that 4.000 m from our thickness is a new thickness (a positive wave swing), and in the middle between them the wave rarefaction (a negative wave), which causes in the opposite direction the same pressure as the thickness. In the middle between the wave thickness and rarefaction is the pressure equal to zero. If we take instead our mass element (cube) a mass block of the same crosssection of 1 dm2 and 1 km long (from thickness with maximal pressure to the point without pressure), we see that entire block has mass of 20.000 kg. That this mass moves with acceleration 1G, of course much larger force is needed:

9

Ftot,ef = m * aef = 20.000kg * 10m/s2 = 2*105N This force doesn't act through entire block equally, as would if the mass block would be firm. The force is distributed along all mass elements in the block and causes that the block shrinks. The same happens with the entire pressure in the wave thickness: Ptot,ef = Ftot,ef / 1dm2 = 200.000N/dm2 = 2*107Pa = 20.000kPa = 20MPa This pressure is equal to 200 bars. The maximal pressure in the thickness is because of sinusoidal oscillation still for factor 1,41 higher from the effective, therefore approximately 28Mpa.

10

Appendix D TABLES OF DETECTED EARTHQUAKES ON THE NORTH AND EAST BORDER OF AUSTRALIAN TECTONIC PLATE ON DECEMBER 2004 AND ON SEPTEMBER 2009 For the comparison of seismic events in the mentioned periods, this Appendix lists the tables of earthquakes on the entire eastern and northern border of Australian tectonic plate for the time from 23 rd to 26th December 2004 and from 28th September to 19th October 2009. As base we took the earthquake lists for these periods from the website US Geological Survey (1.3.65) for the entire Earth and changed them to get useful data: • All earthquakes have been excluded, which didn't fit in this geographical area according to their epicentre coordinates. • The timing sequence of earthquakes has been kept. • Colour assignments separate different regions of the entire area. This way both tables give the time and space layout of the events. • The weakest earthquakes have been deleted. The meaning of colors: red – Sumatra, dark red – east Indonesia, orange – Melanesia, green – Samoa, trench Tonga, blue – New Zealand, trench Puysegur, black – West of Sumatra, Nicobar in Andanam islands. The important earthquakes are bolded.

The earthquakes on the eastern and northern border of Australian tectonic plate for the time from 23rd to 26th December 2004 U. S. G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y EARTHQUAKE DATA BASE FILE CREATED: Wed Oct 7 10:23:58 2009 Global Search Earthquakes= 403 Catalog Used: PDE Date Range: 2004/12/23 to 2004/12/26 Magnitude Range: 3.5 - 9.5 Depth Range: 0 - 100 Data Selection: Historical & Preliminary Data

11

Cat PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE

Year 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

Mo 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Da 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24

Orig time 062245.72 073746.46 141454.24 145904.41 151632.29 152459.19 154821.12 155959.99 160738.41 161633.73 162219.65 162630.81 190535.11 195005.09 200037.20 200700.91 232456.24 013043.28 013159.49 015846.82 032845.50 044127.36 053148.32 054826.37 070158.16 084402.90 102404.83 105946.18 112922.39 113044.88 142929.75 151925.67 162939.35 163448.79 173517.30 193638.68 193903.17 194658.73 201420.72 203809.51 211819.89 212011.46 214628.01

Lat Long -6.24 150.21 -6.73 155.28 -49.80 117.45 -49.31 161.35 -49.51 161.37 -18.46 169.78 -49.17 161.11 -49.33 161.57 -48.70 161.19 -49.27 161.40 -49.58 161.65 -49.50 161.26 -48.68 161.40 -49.31 161.45 -48.81 161.19 -49.20 161.36 -3.79 128.13 -49.59 161.58 -49.37 124.75 -6.10 147.76 -49.39 161.50 -18.31 -174.76 -49.56 161.37 -49.21 162.15 -49.63 161.16 -45.21 170.09 -49.29 161.20 -46.47 96.12 -46.41 95.99 -46.35 95.94 -49.58 161.54 3.04 125.94 -15.65 -173.22 9.02 126.06 -48.97 161.34 -19.20 167.75 -19.13 167.77 -19.32 167.84 -48.63 161.29 4.57 94.21 -19.35 167.84 -3.66 135.35 11.56 145.79

12

Depth Magn 61 4.4 mbGS 48 3.9 mbGS 10 4.2 mbGS 10 8.1 MwHRV 10 5.0 mbGS 10 5.0 mbGS 10 5.3 mbGS 10 4.8 mbGS 10 4.9 mbGS 10 4.9 mbGS 10 4.8 mbGS 10 4.7 mbGS 10 5.0 mbGS 10 5.6 MsGS 10 4.6 mbGS 10 4.3 mbGS 20 4.3 mbGS 10 4.7 mbGS 10 4.2 mbGS 48 4.2 mbGS 10 4.7 mbGS 61 4.9 mbGS 10 5.4 MwHRV 10 4.3 mbGS 10 4.4 mbGS 12 3.9 MLWEL 10 4.7 mbGS 10 4.3 mbGS 10 4.7 mbGS 10 4.7 mbGS 10 4.8 mbGS 71 4.4 mbGS 36 4.3 mbGS 55 4.3 mbGS 10 4.4 mbGS 33 5.0 MwHRV 32 4.7 mbGS 33 3.8 mbGS 10 4.8 mbGS 30 4.3 mbGS 34 4.5 mbGS 10 3.8 mbGS 10 4.4 mbGS

PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE

2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

24 24 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

215602.43 223349.36 223439.99 024333.09 024711.17 050048.97 063450.25 131003.58 164253.44 175907.37 181731.74 222539.70 225421.04 005853.45 011710.33 012120.66 012225.59 012548.76 012952.94 013015.74 013322.38 014007.13 014852.07 015243 015913.99 020040.03 021523.57 021549.50 021559.78 022201.84 023028.94 023452.15 023610.09 023809.35 024059.85 024305.26 024517.65 024620.74 025201.83 025313.04 025640.37 025914.39 030238.08 030613.05 030844.21 030934.08

-48.98 -9.68 -48.62 -50.57 -50.29 -22.65 -11.08 -4.84 -6.03 -33.99 -6.16 -19.08 -8.28 3.30 4.94 6.34 7.42 5.50 20.91 8.83 7.76 5.84 5.43 10.38 8.39 6.85 6.17 12.26 12.32 8.87 6.72 3.99 12.18 8.49 7.48 9.22 8.46 4.24 12.50 0.06 8.61 3.18 8.61 8.19 13.74 4.05

13

161.13 150.53 161.32 161.32 161.91 170.76 163.67 152.49 130.49 -178.84 151.13 167.69 125.05 95.98 94.27 93.36 93.99 94.21 97.71 93.71 93.71 93.15 94.46 92.12 92.45 94.67 93.47 92.28 92.50 92.47 93.08 94.14 92.94 92.35 92.43 94.00 92.61 93.61 92.60 97.04 92.29 94.38 92.33 92.46 93.01 93.53

10 12 10 10 10 10 10 86 10 10 50 35 53 30 30 30 30 30 38 30 25 30 51 12 30 30 30 20 26 15 15 30 38 33 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 27 30 30

4.6 4.7 4.9 4.8 4.4 4.0 4.7 4.1 4.0 4.6 4.6 5.0 4.5 9.0 5.5 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.3 5.7 5.2 5.3 6.0 5.6 5.3 5.7 5.7 5.1 5.7 5.8 5.6 5.4 4.9 5.2 5.7 5.8 5.4 4.9 5.7 5.5 5.1 5.9 5.4

mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS


2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

031413.84 031752.38 031913.05 032257.48 032454.94 032645.79 033001.38 034015.64 034408.34 034642.04 035022.18 035112.36 035444.77 040042.83 040058.43 040212.52 040255.73 040908.40 041012.71 041235.65 041756.81 042129.81 042603.63 043129.06 044011.46 044623.44 044856.49 045309.10 045804.02 050110.56 050121.37 050804.83 050932.50 051234.14 051610.98 052027.92 052135.17 052350.80 054249.27 055140.01 055549.40 060228.38 060930.84 061104.60 061614.68 062200.42

7.44 7.21 3.55 5.82 4.47 4.91 4.64 5.53 13.47 6.72 5.51 5.05 6.48 4.76 6.79 3.04 4.98 8.16 5.48 6.44 8.96 6.91 7.89 6.99 9.12 8.53 8.87 8.19 11.07 9.30 9.46 9.03 9.16 8.46 9.32 12.16 -5.71 3.35 5.49 6.45 3.17 8.27 6.34 9.31 5.84 10.68

14

94.26 92.92 94.29 95.09 94.07 96.40 94.00 94.33 92.74 93.33 94.25 94.77 92.89 93.79 94.08 95.89 94.72 93.82 92.92 93.23 93.72 92.96 93.99 93.18 93.84 93.88 93.75 92.93 92.00 92.21 92.18 92.46 93.89 92.28 94.04 92.40 152.39 94.09 94.29 93.43 93.94 94.06 93.20 93.91 93.36 92.32

30 30 30 20 26 30 25 30 22 46 48 30 30 16 29 30 47 30 36 3 30 39 30 36 38 32 27 30 29 30 30 30 26 36 22 31 66 18 30 29 23 23 29 23 26 26

5.4 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.8 5.3 5.2 5.6 5.2 5.0 5.3 5.7 5.1 5.2 5.5 5.4 5.8 4.9 5.4 4.8 5.3 7.2 5.2 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.2 4.9 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.0 5.2 5.1 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.7 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4

mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS


2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

062235.25 062848.40 063836.05 065647.40 065957.26 070710.27 071140.39 072338.81 072453.05 073016.92 073827 075228.80 075527.13 075937.72 080234.62 080540 081238.70 081459.09 084148.85 084746.72 090242.55 090738.95 091354.71 091751.19 092001.61 093029.54 093055.80 093639.27 093839.35 093902.79 094319.38 094420.36 094809.57 095512.07 095847.13 100207.76 101210.15 101813.79 101931.73 102949 103305.16 104329.95 105119.82 105358.42 105507.50 105602.59

5.34 4.96 6.65 10.98 9.36 10.36 4.81 5.44 7.42 24.85 13.13 8.13 7.48 3.23 5.34 36.19 9.26 6.79 8.90 4.86 8.29 3.42 7.31 7.06 8.88 7.39 7.18 9.35 8.96 3.61 5.53 5.73 6.12 7.59 9.26 7.65 10.25 8.86 13.46 5.17 8.70 6.53 7.63 10.19 4.26 10.07

15

93.07 94.79 92.96 92.28 93.70 93.75 94.97 94.41 92.64 101.69 93.04 94.07 92.36 93.91 94.48 27.26 93.84 94.54 93.48 95.10 93.98 94.34 92.19 94.39 92.38 93.99 93.76 91.86 92.33 95.39 93.14 93.10 95.07 94.30 93.68 92.79 94.31 93.74 92.74 93.48 92.62 92.83 92.31 93.68 95.13 93.83

23 30 16 23 30 19 35 30 34 66 30 17 30 31 34 14 36 30 25 50 26 25 33 21 16 13 30 30 30 30 30 36 30 19 23 31 30 30 26 46 39 36 30 30 30 30

5.1 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.6 5.2 4.7 5.1 4.7 5.7 5.5 5.3 5.3 5.1 4.6 4.8 4.8 5.2 5.3 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.0 6.6 4.9 5.4 4.6 4.9 4.5 5.1 5.2 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.8 5.1 5.5 6.3 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.3 5.2 5.5

mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS


2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

105626.30 105738.36 110353.29 110500.72 111708.52 112644.36 113420.02 115028.09 120942.46 121157.66 122618.23 122719.45 123059.49 124606.37 125152.62 125245.76 131042.50 131327.14 131645.98 132856.52 133948.20 134408.07 135640.17 140205.02 141128.31 141418.03 143907.37 144030.41 144717.44 144844.26 150241.20 150633.24 151221.55 151320.84 152305.33 152308 152331.76 152408.86 152904.99 153427.39 153459.65 153511.17 153654.02 154149.59 154157.08 155044.81

34.87 12.45 11.10 13.53 3.25 -3.46 5.28 6.39 12.19 11.57 5.52 5.23 3.89 5.40 6.97 10.43 7.59 6.14 12.89 7.72 5.26 3.97 2.78 4.80 3.67 13.50 8.30 11.47 4.63 13.59 5.49 3.65 6.73 5.37 7.44 10.57 5.67 7.56 7.38 7.66 4.53 2.71 4.12 4.78 11.96 6.78

16

25.32 92.44 93.95 92.84 93.75 101.39 94.36 93.25 92.60 92.41 93.09 94.38 94.44 93.28 92.61 93.91 94.24 95.43 92.97 94.03 93.30 94.39 94.47 94.78 94.02 92.92 92.36 92.18 95.10 92.91 93.44 94.09 92.98 93.43 94.22 92.72 92.81 94.23 92.98 91.68 95.25 94.13 93.85 95.00 92.17 93.98

15 5 30 13 30 30 30 61 20 25 30 30 30 25 30 30 30 30 30 19 30 31 30 30 30 17 30 30 30 30 27 17 18 30 17 30 39 17 30 30 30 25 39 30 30 32

3.7 5.4 4.8 6.2 5.2 4.9 4.8 5.2 5.4 5.4 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.9 4.7 5.1 4.8 4.9 4.7 5.2 4.7 5.1 5.9 4.8 5.2 5.0 5.1 5.3 4.9 5.7 4.7 6.0 5.3 5.4 5.0 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.9 4.6 4.4 4.3

MDATH mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS


2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

155333.30 155420.19 155647.76 155923.39 160622.23 161043.51 161253.01 161315.26 162127.41 162709.13 163747.64 164315.03 164419.83 164723.38 164824.11 165517.27 170720.68 170724.40 171300.30 172132.41 172452.38 173024.53 173223.17 174234.81 174452.77 175012.59 175230.86 175635.84 175900.46 180108.28 181043.16 181449.54 181655.97 182931.78 183143.48 183207.92 183355.60 184243.89 184759.46 185546.10 185922.83 190324.17 190349.21 191518.32 191955.57 192947.39

-32.66 10.89 13.96 7.24 4.89 7.84 13.94 7.82 5.15 7.86 9.06 9.06 13.63 5.27 7.22 3.86 9.12 4.07 3.38 3.60 4.84 8.52 2.93 4.73 8.93 13.60 1.29 12.86 8.31 9.13 8.95 4.80 3.37 8.06 6.32 3.84 9.43 13.71 7.74 11.98 4.83 6.15 4.09 -1.53 2.79 12.48

17

-178.01 91.79 93.22 92.48 93.28 94.11 93.31 94.17 94.32 92.72 93.45 92.62 92.75 94.12 93.03 94.50 93.87 93.79 94.33 93.45 93.49 93.73 93.48 94.88 93.97 92.85 126.24 92.48 93.95 93.82 94.04 94.09 94.10 92.20 93.32 93.32 93.66 92.95 94.08 91.97 94.57 93.34 94.22 138.77 94.16 92.60

10 30 10 33 30 30 4 20 41 30 30 36 22 30 49 30 25 23 30 30 30 30 30 30 22 26 50 45 0 22 25 30 28 30 30 26 47 26 47 30 43 29 30 30 30 25

4.9 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.7 5.4 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.4 4.9 5.5 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.5 5.2 5.0 4.9 5.1 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.8 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.5 4.7 4.9 4.6 4.4 5.6 5.7 6.1 4.4

mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwHRV mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwHRV MwHRV MwHRV mbGS


2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

194301.80 194928.02 195514.93 195552.88 200114.25 200225.15 200548.86 200834.60 201158.11 201450.13 201516.38 202128.52 202416.75 202957.82 203437 203709.70 204033.16 204348.68 204634.48 205908.32 210345.85 210648.80 211827.80 211930.79 211955.55 212042.31 212134.07 212533.15 212543.24 212608.32 213312.38 213404.35 213425.56 213642.41 213935.31 214357.76 214438.22 215102.42 215329.28 215510.90 220855.94 221320.61 221404.37 221506.47 221920.88 222036.23

6.65 8.56 11.62 4.53 10.30 7.46 5.21 14.47 10.87 -3.36 2.81 5.19 10.24 8.94 7.84 12.96 5.18 2.68 6.08 5.17 5.06 4.47 3.97 4.23 8.08 8.58 4.05 4.75 4.33 13.81 8.81 -10.90 3.66 8.28 12.76 6.49 7.03 6.83 7.71 10.73 2.64 7.98 5.18 8.12 8.28 5.21

18

92.86 92.54 92.32 93.49 93.74 92.67 93.25 120.05 92.62 101.55 95.73 93.25 93.62 93.59 93.85 92.36 93.29 94.32 92.99 93.26 93.54 96.34 94.72 97.81 92.09 92.14 92.64 94.85 95.07 93.20 92.47 161.96 97.20 92.65 92.54 94.29 92.56 92.69 93.73 91.54 95.47 93.90 94.27 93.77 92.21 93.35

30 30 25 20 30 30 26 58 30 52 30 30 30 35 21 22 24 28 34 27 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 63 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 22 30 53 30 30 28

4.6 4.4 4.7 4.0 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.8 4.2 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.2 4.7 4.4 4.5 5.5 4.3 4.9 4.4 4.9 4.7 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.8 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.1 4.4

mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS

PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE PDE

2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004

12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26

222104.65 222205.09 222509.79 222732.68 222941.81 223451.55 223808.48 223920.65 223925.83 224234.64 224504.48 224611.06 224813.66 225137.48 225726.64 225732.79 225922.69 230426.65 230912.45 231127.09 231335.34 231814.66 232149.43 232202.49 232333.14 232909.24 233145.58 233915.94 234227.59 234421.93 234742.11 235132.92 235508.02 235806.30

8.88 8.61 -6.33 1.04 5.67 -4.63 3.42 8.03 6.96 5.90 12.22 8.99 5.57 3.88 10.16 5.96 2.92 9.29 2.61 8.44 5.22 6.14 8.70 8.32 11.79 8.87 9.02 7.87 5.08 3.94 5.10 7.51 8.19 3.19

19

94.19 92.14 103.67 96.60 93.03 68.91 94.86 92.32 92.51 94.79 92.70 92.51 93.52 94.06 91.51 92.91 93.89 91.97 96.10 93.58 93.36 93.09 93.32 93.67 92.87 92.29 92.38 94.17 93.26 94.15 93.58 94.24 92.16 93.66

30 23 30 16 32 10 30 30 30 30 30 36 30 22 29 30 26 30 30 30 25 30 30 30 21 29 30 30 30 28 30 30 30 28

4.5 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.3 4.8 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.1 4.3 4.9 4.5 4.2 3.9 4.5 4.5 5.1 4.5 4.3 4.3 3.9 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.8 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.0 4.2 4.6

mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS

The earthquakes on the eastern and northern border of Australian tectonic plate for the time from 28th September to 6th October 2009 U. S. G E O L O G I C A L S U R V E Y EARTHQUAKE DATA BASE FILE CREATED: Thu Oct 8 07:03:03 2009 Global Search Earthquakes= 174 Catalog Used: PDE Date Range: 2009/09/28 to 2009/10/06 Magnitude Range: 3.5 - 9.5 Depth Range: 0 - 100 Data Selection: Historical & Preliminary Data Cat PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q

Year 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Mo 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09

Da 28 28 28 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29

Orig time 002623.87 071436.64 143856.84 020408.56 174810.85 180821.87 181936.05 182142.44 182925.99 183430.04 183629.51 184012.63 184602.22 185145.10 185758.71 191852.89 193312.27 195746.91 200539.99 203349.54 212857.50 215100.27 220830.32 221005.09 223617.81 224145.09 225407.48 231151 233256.88

Lat -7.92 -3.88 -6.16 -5.19 -15.51 -15.51 -15.95 -16.19 -15.91 -14.92 -15.31 -15.34 -14.95 -16.11 -16.10 -16.88 -15.95 -15.17 -14.86 -16.79 -17.09 -16.16 -15.29 -15.19 27.79 -15.07 37.00 -15.69 -15.54

20

Long 107.19 141.97 152.29 100.89 -172.03 -172.08 -171.61 -172.98 -173.21 -172.44 -172.96 -173.27 -173.33 -173.21 -173.04 -172.80 -173.36 -173.13 -173.83 -172.54 -172.85 -172.63 -173.39 -173.08 127.76 -173.21 -104.81 -173.32 -173.33

Depth 50 64 31 31 18 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 10

Magn 4.8 4.7 5.1 4.7 8.0 5.6 5.6 5.8 5.1 5.2 5.0 5.5 5.0 4.7 5.1 5.2 4.9 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.3 4.9 3.6 5.5 5.3

mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS wUCMT mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MLGS mbGS mbGS

PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 10

29 29 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 01 01 01 01 01 01

234503.52 235143.43 001137.77 002237.73 002752.74 004053.56 010533.85 010929.21 011616.80 013040.28 013942.05 013950.33 014650.60 022132.62 022933.87 023907.94 024726.71 031810.55 040311.05 044622.09 050833.93 052451.48 055357.10 071346.90 073215.27 082459 090512.75 092926.86 101609.19 103853.68 124801.08 133108.72 135711.45 152016.03 172039.85 173028.61 174717.30 180446.94 194353.36 212254.40 003022.79 013104.42 015228.26 022031.11 034157.80 054419.47

-15.83 -15.09 -15.98 -15.49 -15.02 -15.48 -15.01 -15.01 -15.43 -15.42 4.91 -15.54 3.87 4.91 -16.45 -16.24 -15.81 -15.87 -15.70 -16.31 4.95 -15.35 23.11 -16.58 -15.26 -16.56 -16.10 -33.21 -0.73 -0.75 -6.28 -15.06 -16.64 -15.09 -23.05 -23.06 -15.45 -15.08 -15.35 -16.67 -16.44 4.23 -2.51 -2.46 -15.60 -45.99

21

-172.53 -171.93 -172.21 -173.42 -173.10 -172.49 -173.37 -173.66 -172.49 -172.51 126.71 -173.22 126.61 126.82 -173.36 -173.11 -173.13 -172.50 -173.33 -172.26 126.87 -173.38 124.31 -172.94 -172.70 -172.72 -172.97 -179.20 99.86 100.07 151.40 -173.51 -172.52 -173.43 169.52 169.51 -173.38 -177.30 -173.45 -173.83 -172.44 127.49 101.48 101.37 -173.61 166.91

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 65 10 35 45 10 10 10 10 10 10 54 10 10 10 10 10 10 35 81 98 56 10 10 10 31 10 10 10 10 10 10 60 15 10 10 10

6.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 4.7 5.5 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.8 5.3 4.9 4.7 4.9 5.3 5.0 4.8 7.6 5.5 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.1 5.4 4.9 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.0 5.0 5.0 6.6 5.2 4.7 4.7

mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS wWCMT mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS wUCMT mbGS mbGS mbGS


2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 03 03 03 03 04 04 04 04 04 04 05 05

061330.52 070217.91 072407.96 084959.11 094726.93 105107.60 133344.14 153433.57 181852.99 184017.28 205544.10 211542.24 223337.50 010739.53 015503.66 021356.14 022314.91 024646.99 025258.71 050513.47 063039.06 094555.59 095719.10 110934.49 120112.98 120831.62 122636.06 154713.70 155357.89 182905.91 200302.20 223844.59 224828.19 232924.14 015448.32 071659.35 113710 115233.79 015456.71 033600.05 091031.65 170229.45 170955.25 175154.09 071233.13 082848.72

-15.22 -8.31 -15.27 -16.60 -16.27 -17.20 -15.45 -16.24 -15.04 -14.99 -12.29 -16.34 -16.42 -16.33 -14.88 -15.44 -6.30 -16.64 -16.09 -15.75 -16.50 -14.91 -6.11 -14.73 -15.38 -16.41 2.06 -17.03 -0.93 13.96 -17.12 -17.81 -33.25 -3.45 -15.14 -16.86 36.39 4.86 -17.46 -0.45 -16.21 -15.12 -16.22 -6.01 -16.17 -16.36

22

-172.97 159.03 -173.55 -172.97 -173.55 -172.79 -173.56 -173.44 -173.81 -173.43 166.43 -173.40 -173.05 -173.50 -173.60 -172.28 130.82 -172.56 -173.34 -173.27 -173.31 -174.06 151.38 -173.35 -172.84 -172.67 128.78 174.47 121.68 92.87 -172.63 -172.59 -178.99 131.20 -173.71 -172.95 -117.87 96.19 -173.29 133.01 -173.24 -172.79 -173.45 147.56 -172.01 -173.48

10 35 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 85 9 59 10 10 10 93 10 10 10 10 10 49 10 10 10 35 35 60 38 10 44 19 37 10 10 1 35 10 41 23 10 10 67 10 10

5.7 4.9 5.1 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.0 4.9 5.4 5.0 5.4 4.8 4.8 6.1 5.1 4.9 4.9 5.1 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.9 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.4 4.7 5.9 5.3 4.7 5.1 5.3 4.7 4.8 4.6 5.2 4.5 4.5 4.7 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.4 4.6 4.7

MwGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS wWCMT mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MLPAS mbGS mbGS wUCMT MwGS mbGS MwGS mbGS mbGS mbGS

PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06

092251.02 122409.39 124637.34 125102.94 185243.46 213851.42 224530.98 015939.79 043023.19 093338.25 093800.12

-16.28 -15.94 -16.93 -0.81 -15.31 2.08 -15.26 -4.52 2.07 -20.78 -16.28

-172.95 -172.86 -172.40 99.84 -173.65 128.80 -173.46 -104.91 128.35 168.66 -172.71

10 10 10 91 10 63 10 10 72 44 10

5.0 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.9 5.6 4.7 5.1 4.9

mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwGS mbGS mbGS mbGS

The earthquakes on the eastern and northern border of Australian tectonic plate for the time from 6th October to 19th October 2009 FILE CREATED: Tue Oct 13 13:29:36 2009 Global Search Earthquakes= 98 Catalog Used: PDE Date Range: 2009/10/06 to 2009/10/19 Magnitude Range: 3.5 - 9.5 Depth Range: 0 - 100 Data Selection: Historical & Preliminary Data Cat PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q

Year 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

Mo 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Da 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 08

Orig time 043023.19 093338.25 093800.12 152333.97 200154.48 204721.73 205518.49 223119.34 020859.05 050856.22 085905.93 130213.74 154833.29 220315.99 221826.05 231349.20 233808.86 234852.99 010837.08

Lat 2.07 -20.78 -16.28 -5.23 -15.16 -15.93 -14.93 -15.65 -16.15 -13.61 -16.53 -0.46 -8.30 -13.05 -12.55 -13.11 -16.64 -13.49 -12.85

23

Long 128.35 168.66 -172.71 145.39 -173.64 -173.56 -173.94 -172.30 -173.69 165.94 -172.65 132.88 127.62 166.19 166.32 166.34 -172.47 166.41 166.19

Depth 72 44 10 82 10 10 10 10 10 35 10 51 14 35 35 33 10 29 35

Magn 4.7 5.1 4.9 4.9 4.5 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.8 5.0 7.6 7.8 6.4 5.3 5.7 5.4

mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwGS MwGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS


2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12

013100.73 015920.41 021239.07 034056.12 041754.38 043851.38 060712.75 064447.75 082848.69 083437.75 101111.67 104730.61 113504.03 175501.37 181050.67 185127.57 211612.89 213721.46 224333.13 233239.38 233549.84 034736.77 073328.32 091440.13 131232.97 170717.60 194132.68 201817.88 224959.92 084250.79 111109.67 142516.19 153459.41 164906.55 170702.89 190032 194127.99 031123.97 031213.53 031222.30 044752.06 110039.60 180200.94 184204.73 195922.18 093723.78

-13.42 -11.92 -11.65 -12.79 -13.02 -12.98 -11.39 -12.52 -13.30 -12.28 -11.26 -12.52 -13.40 -13.01 -11.98 -11.66 -12.91 -12.40 -10.84 -13.15 -12.48 -12.90 -13.22 -11.75 -13.30 -13.13 -12.21 -11.66 -9.02 41.81 -13.62 -14.12 -14.19 -14.44 -14.05 -10.69 -15.67 -14.95 -21.98 -11.65 -13.03 -17.55 -12.95 -12.92 -11.33 -12.42

24

166.51 165.89 166.18 165.79 165.96 166.07 165.58 166.45 165.95 166.45 165.77 165.30 166.60 166.22 165.87 165.96 166.23 166.10 165.41 165.93 166.55 166.44 166.27 165.85 166.41 166.16 165.89 165.97 157.85 142.12 166.53 166.65 166.48 166.30 166.54 165.08 -173.09 -173.61 170.23 165.18 166.12 -173.10 165.85 166.04 165.38 166.49

35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 80 88 35 35 35 35 15 54 18 58 78 95 35 10 42 35 46 35 38 96 10 37 35 30 35 41 35 35 10 35 48 10 10 10 91 59

5.1 5.8 6.6 5.2 5.3 5.1 5.1 5.1 6.8 6.5 5.4 5.1 4.9 4.9 5.2 4.9 5.7 5.3 5.3 4.9 5.5 4.7 5.2 5.4 5.5 5.1 5.0 5.2 5.7 5.2 5.3 5.8 5.3 5.1 4.7 4.8 5.9 4.7 5.8 5.2 5.6 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.1 6.2

mbGS mbGS MwGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwGS MwGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwGS mbGS MwGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS wUCMT

PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q PDE-Q

2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 19 19

093723.85 102923.06 124441.90 205937.74 002131.42 044904.69 113805.87 204815.20 000014 005511.18 031859.65 065449.69 075900.99 093436.49 180021.64 033209.27 055254.68 085037.66 094836.15 183335.93 090742.01 093736.88 095252.60 171657.76 014210.24 014719.23 104526.64 131843.92 082325.40 082615.07 104729.73 120233.49 172155.70 230023.04 232911.32 073554.99 074142.64

-12.52 -14.01 -11.76 -14.09 -13.49 -12.25 2.94 -13.15 -14.82 -12.67 -12.58 -14.18 -15.27 -11.57 -14.95 -22.65 -33.40 -12.65 -12.67 -3.66 -7.93 -12.03 -6.61 -12.49 -14.75 -14.99 -16.38 -12.94 -3.65 -3.60 -3.59 -16.40 -7.52 -15.38 -1.08 -13.14 -15.37

25

166.48 166.61 166.33 166.39 166.59 165.49 128.22 166.87 -173.06 166.28 166.27 166.56 -173.17 165.94 -174.81 171.06 -178.72 166.08 166.03 123.25 129.40 165.83 105.18 165.89 -173.87 -173.79 -171.98 166.25 123.23 123.26 101.46 -173.25 126.09 -172.08 97.81 166.08 -172.94

62 93 70 35 10 35 32 73 10 28 35 89 10 35 10 35 35 35 51 10 35 35 50 10 10 10 10 68 17 23 62 10 10 88 31 35 35

5.9 5.0 5.5 5.7 5.2 4.9 6.0 5.1 4.9 5.4 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.0 6.3 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.9 5.7 4.8 4.8 6.1 5.1 4.7 4.7 5.7 5.3 5.6 5.4 4.6 5.2 5.2 4.7 4.7 5.3 6.1

mbGS mbGS MwGS MwGS mbGS mbGS wUCMT mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS wUCMT mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS wUCMT mbGS mbGS wUCMT mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS mbGS MwGS

Appendix E THE ENERGETIC BALANCE OF THE EARTH Through the entire book one of the essential topics was the energy. We looked how much pollution and influence to the life the energy production from different sources causes. How much land we need for that and how much we would need, if we wanted to exchange all today's essential sources with inconsiderate alternative energies. We calculated also the funding possibilities to save the planet energetically of the robbing human. Beside already well known dangers for this planet we found still others, more hidden. We came to the conclusions that only those energy sources are acceptable for the future of the Earth, which more or less directly, or with short renewable times, transform the solar radiation into usable energy for human. Many informations have been used to support those findings with numbers and calculations. We compared the global possibilities and human needs upon the energy and the possibilities that these needs lower. But we didn't show all these existing and potential energy influences together. Because of the human exaggerated usage of wrong energy sources the natural greenhouse effect of the Earth's atmosphere is gaining. We are entering to the large and dangerous disturbances in the energy flows of the entire planet. Therefore it is right to connect all our previous considerations and put them aside of the only energy, which enables the organic life on the Earth. This is the influx of the solar energy, its changing and influences to different systems of this planet. With completion of previous views to the energy and usage of still other, newer information, this appendix will give us also the answer, how much time we still have to play with the nature and live in illusion that this is the right way. Using wrong data The book (E.2) and other sources, too state the percentage relations between particular global groups of consumption or production energy, compared with solar radiation outside the atmosphere (100 %). The energy, "additionally consumed by people" should be 0,004 % of that solar radiation. First it is not quite clear, what does "additional consumption" mean. Some energy we get from sources, which accumulated the solar radiation, as hydro power plants or bio mass, some from radiation falling directly on the Earth's surface. This energy should account into the solar energy, accumulated by the Earth. So we can infer that the listed percentage refers to the fossil fuels, nuclear and geothermal energy.

26

The mean consumption, respectively the production of human primary energy from 2005 to 2010 was approximately 140*1012 kWh annually (Chapter 4.1). In the year 2007 we produced from fossil, nuclear and geothermal sources approximately 92 % of all this energy (A.E.1), recalculated to 129*1012 kWh. This means the average power of this additionally consumed energy 14,7*109 kW. If it means 0,004 % of the entire power hitting the Earth's atmosphere, this power should amount then 368*1012 kW. For the same parameter the Wikipedia (A.E.2) lists the power of solar radiation through the entire Earth's cross-section of 174*1012 kW, what gives, divided with the Earth's cross-section, probably the right solar constant of 1.366 W/m2. This power decreases due the losses and reflections in the atmosphere to about known 1.000 W/m2 of maximal solar radiation on the Earth's surface. If we try to search the error, we can assume that for the comparison the authors took a smaller value of the produced energy on the Earth from year 1996 (E.2), or even only the value of consumed secondary energy in that time (81*1012kWh). If in this case we subtract 10 % of all renewable sources, calculate the average power of all those non-renewables (8,3*109 kW), we get using the listed percent still too large power of solar radiation outside the atmosphere (208.109 kW). The source of error had to be older. Transferring data between the users and with changing other parallel information, the error just increased. So let's trust Wikipedia (A.E.2) and calculate some things. First of all in the centre of our interest are the exact energy relations between Earth's received solar energy, the produced human energy from fossil fuels and the geothermal energy, radiated by the Earth into space. We are interested also, how the usage and flows of all these energies through the land, oceans and atmosphere influence to the warming of then Earth's surface, called the greenhouse effect. From the measured power of solar radiation, 30 % reflects immediately off the atmosphere, clouds and Earth's surface. The atmosphere absorbs 23 % and later in the form of warmth emits again back in the space and down to the Earth. The rest 47 % is absorbed by land and ocean surfaces and again, in different forms of warmth radiation and convection of warmed air and water, transferred back into atmosphere and forward into space. These numbers differ a little from source to source and understandably with the age, too. 47 % of Earth-absorbed solar radiation means 81,8*1012 kWh of energy in each hour and 716.400*1012 kWh in a year. This is approximately 5.100 times more, as the energy produced and consumed by the human. Roughly, people produce

27

0,02 % of the energy, which falls on the Earth's surface and 0,01 % of those, which hits the atmosphere. We will still meet with inaccurate and questionable data, published by the individuals, organisations, companies and websites. Some can have interests in hiding certain inconvenient facts, or in the crowd of different data we don't find the right ones. Therefore it is important that we know to calculate and develop the results or discoveries, which interest us, from the most basic measured and collected data, where the smallest possibility exists on errors, misinterpretations or intentional changes.

ENERGY CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ATMOSPHERE Next two pictures (A.E.2) show the parts of different energy fluxes through the Earth's atmosphere in the absolute units and in percent. Yellow colour shows the direct and reflected solar radiation (light and warmth). The transformed, from material parts radiated warmth is red. The first we see far smaller value of incoming solar radiation, as the known solar constant (power of solar radiation outside the atmosphere) is approximately 1.370 W/m2. The value 340 W/m2 is an average value, recalculated to the entire Earth's surface, which is exactly 4 times larger as its cross-section. This value represents for the Earth the same accepted amount of energy, as the Sun would shine to the entire Earth's surface all the time with this power. The reason for using this average is the possibility to compare the energies, which flow only during the day time, with the warmth fluxes, which flow all the time approximately equally. The factors which maintain approximately constant average temperature of the Earth's land, oceans and atmosphere are not only the direct solar radiation, reflections of light beams from the atmosphere, clouds and surface, accumulation of accepted energy in surface masses and its radiation back to space. A part of direct solar radiation and a part of Earth's warmth radiation is trapped in atmosphere in the greenhouse gases (GHG), which then send this warmth back to the Earth's surface, too. The largest parts of these gases are parts of the natural balance, which had developed in millions of years. This warmth, which is redirected back to the Earth, represents the greenhouse effect (GHE). It is also a part of natural balance of all energy fluxes. Without the natural greenhouse gases and without this warmth kept back, the Earth would radiate the accepted energy much easier. Its surface temperatures would be lower and not appropriate for this organic life. The largest part of greenhouse

28

gases is the water vapour, which can have, because of different weather events, very different concentrations in the air.

Picture E.1 Energy flows through the atmosphere. The values are in physical units.

Picture E.2 Energy flows through the atmosphere. The values are in percent of incoming solar radiation.

29

A table on the website Wikipedia (A.E.3) gives the overview of the most important concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and their estimated contribution to the common greenhouse effect. Compared with the other, it is interesting that very large extent of water concentrations causes much smaller extent of the effect. Substance Water vapour and clouds Carbon dioxide Methane Ozone

Formula

Concentration in the atmosphere (ppm) 10 - 50.000 ~400 ~1.8 2-8

H2O CO2 CH4 O3

Greenhouse effect (%) 36 - 72% 9 - 26% 4 - 9% 3 - 7%

Table E.1 Concentrations of the main greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and their estimated contribution to the Earth's greenhouse effect. For water 10 ppm (parts per million) means after the recalculation from molar to mass units, for example 6,2 mg of water in 1 kg of air. The ability of air for water absorption at -50 deg.C in troposphere is approximately 100 mg/kg. Therefore 6 mg represents 6 % relative humidity more than 10 km high, respectively at very low temperatures. This margin of concentration is probably suitable and lower are not important any more. 50.000 ppm is equal to 31 grams of water in 1 kg of air. This represents the ability of air for water absorption (100 % relative humidity) at 33 deg.C, or the presence of clouds at lower temperatures on higher altitudes. The concentration of water vapour in the air is highly dependent on evaporation of water sources and temperatures on the Earth's surface and on incapability of air to absorb large water quantities. Therefore it is understandably that these concentrations change very quickly with appearance of precipitation. The other greenhouse gases, which are parts of the atmosphere or they enter into it, have much longer "life period" in the atmosphere. They don't have a typical cycle of returning back to the surface in the form of precipitation. In the atmosphere they exist in much lower quantities as water. Their concentrations disperse equably through the atmosphere, despite the particular sources of some gases are more concentrated on the surface. When we talk today about the greenhouse effect, mostly we have in mind only the increase in this effect, and most people understand this exactly in this way.

30

This means only that part of greenhouse effect, which appears because of accumulation of those gases in atmosphere, which are the consequences of human activities – like the carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and methane from stock breeding. On upper two pictures the energy flow "back radiation" represents that entire greenhouse effect – the natural and artificially created "reflection" of warmth from water vapour, clouds and from gases, mostly considered as the main culprits for this happening. The "reflection" is not quite right word, because the gases first absorb the warmth in the movement of their molecules and vibrations of their atoms. This movement then sends (radiate) newly created warmth energy toward the Earth's surface, too.

The thermal resistance of the atmosphere Looking physically and averagely, the atmosphere represents for the radiation of the Earth's warmth (irrespectively, how the warmth flows inside of the atmosphere) a kind of thermal resistance. At a thermal resistance, a warmth flux through a material layer depends on the temperatures on both sides of this layer and of course on the characteristic of the material. If the thermal resistance increases at the same temperatures (for example, if we add another layer of the same material), the warmth flux decreases. But if the flux had to stay the same, the temperature difference would have to increase, either with increasing temperature ahead the layer or/and with decreasing temperature behind it. If a certain thermal flux exists already on the path before our thermal resistance, increasing it causes the accumulation of the warmth ahead the resistance and consequently increasing the temperature there. Exactly this happens on the Earth's surface. In the past all energy fluxes, including through natural cloudiness and natural quantities of CO2 and methane in the air, have flown in the equilibrium. The influx of solar energy to the Earth's surface represented that constant warmth flux ahead the atmosphere thermal resistance through which the energy had to go out. That constant thermal flux and averagely constant thermal resistance of the atmosphere defined also the average constant temperature of the Earth's surface. Because of human activities the additional quantities of these greenhouse gases began to release in the atmosphere, first of all CO2, methane and a little less different nitrogen oxides. The oxidation of carbon appears because of burning natural substances, wood and fossil fuels. Second main product of this burning is water. The nitrogen oxides are consequences of oxidation of nitrogen from the air and from vegetation protein substances. Methane originates in bio chemical processes without presence of oxygen and leaks from the natural storages, too.

31

Because of these added greenhouse gases in the atmosphere its thermal resistance increases. The urgent consequence of the constant influx of solar energy to the Earth's surface is therefore increasing of the surface temperature ahead the thermal resistance of the atmosphere. The accumulation of the energy on the Earth's surface increases with the energy from human burning fossil and nuclear fuels and it has other consequences, too.

Consequent distribution of surplus energy The influx of solar energy is the largest in the latitudes around the equator and there appears the largest surplus of energy, impeded at its radiation to the space by increased greenhouse effect. This surplus of energy is being redirected already on the Earth toward the regions, which contain less energy, where the temperatures are lower. And that the Arctic and Antarctic are. But because the quantities of material in these regions (land, sea, ice and atmosphere) are significantly lower as at the equator, with added energy they warm from equilibrium temperatures much more then the hot Earth's regions. Increasing temperature at the equator for 1 degree C means increasing to polar regions for more than 10 degrees. The Arctic seas warm with inflow of warm water too, from the Atlantic ocean with the Gulf stream and from Pacific through the Bering strait. The melting of the ice is adding its own. Larger and larger dark sea surfaces don't reflect the solar light any more. They absorb the light energy and warm additionally. Warming Arctic atmosphere has consequences in stronger storms, which cause with strong winds and sea waving the breaking of the ice, increase access of warmer water to the ice and contribute in this way additionally to its melting. Therefore the consequences of melting Arctic and Antarctic ice, frozen land and sea bottom (permafrost) are so catastrophic. Because of the same effect the temperatures in high mountain regions increase also much more as in the lowlands and therefore the glaciers disappear.

32

The greenhouse effect in equilibrium The pictures showing the thermal equilibrium of the Earth are newer and based on average of newer measurements. Therefore the listed thermal fluxes very probably already include the increased greenhouse effect. Let's try to evaluate, how much the Earth's energy budget has changed according to the historical equilibrium. Gas

Carbon dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Nitrogen oxide (N2O) Ozone (O3)

Concentration in troposphere before 1750 (ppb) 280.000

Concentration in troposphere today (ppb) 395.400

700

Absolute increase (ppb)

Relative increase (%)

115.400

41,2

1.893

1.193

170,4

270

326

56

20,7

237

337

100

42,0

Table E.2 Increasing quantities of the most important greenhouse gases in atmosphere from the beginning of industrial age forward. From data in Table E.1 we can calculate the marginal and mean values of particular contributions to the greenhouse effect in natural balance. They are shown in Table E.3. We have decreased the marginal values of today's greenhouse contributions for the percent of relative increasing from the Table E.2. We don't find the information about the water on this website. If the water caused in equilibrium the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as today, its mean value would be 54 %. Comparing with today's (100 %) contribution, all mayor gases in common would cause in the equilibrium only 72 % of today's greenhouse thermal flux.

33

Gas

Water vapour and clouds (H2O) Carbon dioxide (CO2) Methane (CH4) Ozone (O3)

Concentration Contribution Contribution Contribution in troposphere marginal marginal mean today values today values in values in (ppm) (%) equilibrium equilibrium (%) (%) 10 - 50.000 36 - 72 33 - 67 50

~400

9 - 26

6,4 - 18,4

12

~1.8

4-9

1,5 - 3,3

2,4

2-8

3-7

2,1 - 4,9

3,5

Table E.3 The contributions of greenhouse gases in equilibrium state before the industrial age. But this is not all. In the last two centuries the average surface temperature of land and oceans together increased for 1,5 deg. C, only in last 35 years for 0,84 degree (A.E.7). The monthly updated data in website NOAA confirm this, too (A.E.5). The increased ocean temperatures mean the increased evaporation and the increased temperature of the atmosphere means larger ability of absorption water vapour in the air. We see from Picture E.4, for how much at certain temperatures. Because the temperature difference in the thermal resistance of the atmosphere is for 1,5 degrees smaller and because the temperature ahead the resistance increased, mostly the lower layers of atmosphere are warmer, too. Where already before existed the largest ability for water absorption, now is still a little larger. Also the clouds are warmer and their larger inner energy can mean that they are not so compact any more, that they tear and swirl, what we really see today many times in the atmosphere. Because of that the unabsorbed water takes more space and decrease the solar lighting of the Earth's surface. Today the atmosphere contains more water and it is more dispersed. All this hinders the radiation of Earth's warmth back into the space and therefore additionally increases the thermal resistance of the atmosphere.

34

Picture E.3.1 Global change of average Earth's surface temperatures for entire 20th century (A.E.5)

Picture E.3.2 Global change of average Earth's surface temperatures from year 1980 forward (A.E.7)

35

Several studies confirm this and one has been done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (A.E.6). The atmosphere heats because of human activities. The quantity of water vapour increases and traps in lower layers still more warmth and, according to the principle of positive feedback loop, further increases the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere. The theory, observations and simulations confirm for each degree warmer atmosphere from 6 to 7,5 percent increasing of humidity in lower layers of atmosphere. Because the Earth's surface has been warmed for 1,5 deg.C from the equilibrium state, this average 1 degree has been transferred in the atmosphere, too. And if the influence of the humidity to the greenhouse increased for those 7 % too, we can calculate the margins and the mean value of the humidity influence in the equilibrium state, as gathered in the Table E.3. The common average equilibrium greenhouse effect would be therefore 50 + 12 + 2,4 + 3,5 = 68 %. This is equal to 2/3 of today's effect. Saying differently, according to the equilibrium today's greenhouse radiation 340 W/m2 represents exact 50 % increasing. The equilibrium greenhouse radiation had to be therefore 340 * 0,68 = 231 W/m2.

The water from aircraft engines and burning other fossil fuels In the last time several sources claim the increased aircraft traffic as one of the important reasons for increased cloudiness. The cold pushing air jets from the modern big aircraft engines cool faster the water formed from the fuel in the combustion part of engine. This water represents 30 % of newly created gases in the exhaust, from 1 to 5 kg in a second of flight. In the moments behind the plane this can be far too large density of water in the air to absorb it. Therefore this water freezes faster and such planes leave long and consistent traces of frozen water crystals (already without spraying chemical aerosols). With this they hinder direct solar radiation of the Earth's surface. The consumption of aircraft fuels is low comparing with the entire combustion of all fossil fuels, which beside CO2 creates the water too. Daily consumption is approximately 5,3 million barrels, respectively 273*109 kg of fuel annually. This burns into 3,5*1012 kWh energy, what is 2,5 % of all globally produced energy, or 2,9 % of energy from fossil fuels. Therefore the aircraft adds into the atmosphere approximately 3 % of all water, created from fossil fuels. And what do all fossil fuels together? In the Table E.8 we calculated emissions of CO2 and water from all fossil fuels. Annually emitted water means the volume of 15 km3. The atmosphere contains together 12.900 km3 of water. Therefore the humanity releases with fossil fuels

36

annually 0,116 % of total water in atmosphere. This means approximately 1 % in each decade and 5 % in the last 50 years. The information on 7 % increased total quantity of air humidity (A.E.6) could really match with this source, because the consumption of fossil fuels lasts already longer time. Let's look if really? The average time of staying moisture in the atmosphere is short, about 9 days. Therefore in these 9 days all water from the air must fall on the ground and be replaced with the new, mostly (80 %) with evaporation from the oceans. This means the exchange of 1.433 km3 every day. This circulation of water through atmosphere is daily almost 100 times larger from annual production of water from all fossil fuels. Differently, water from fossil fuels represents only 0,0027 % of those included into atmosphere circulation. Therefore it is impossible to claim that the water from fossil fuels represents that increasing to atmosphere water for 7 %. It contributes only a very small piece to this cycle and after few days it also falls with other precipitation to the ground.

Picture E.4 Curve of 100 % relative air humidity The largest part of lower atmosphere is in contact with oceans. Here the air has similar temperature, too. The average surface temperature of oceans is 17 deg.C. On the Picture E.4 we see that the curve of maximal (100%) relative air

37

humidity between 10 and 20 degrees is approximately linear with the slope 0,6 grams of possible absorption change in 1 kg of air for every degree of its temperature change. (9 g/kg at 10 and 15 g/kg at 20 deg.C). If the temperature of oceans, as well as the average, raised for 1 degree and the air above it too, the atmosphere gained additional ability for water absorption. If we take the lowest 5 km high part of the atmosphere, which contains the most of the vapour and clouds, with average temperature between 0 deg.C (5 g/kg) and -10 deg.C (2 g/kg), we get for changing temperature for 1 degree the change of 100% relative humidity of 0,3 g/kg. The volume of this part of atmosphere is 2.572*1015 m3 with average air density of 1 kg/m3. In this mass of the air the temperature increase for 1 degree can additionally absorb: 0,3 g/kg * 2572*1015 kg = 771*1015 g = 771*1012 kg, respectively 771 km3 of water. This is far more than it is necessary for absorption of water from all fossil fuels. This quantity is exactly 6 % of all water in the atmosphere. It matches with the measured actual increasing it for 6 to 7,5 %. This is the proof that the lower part of the atmosphere has really warmed for approximately 1 deg. C. The additional moisture couldn't come from other sources as with evaporation from the Earth's surface, mostly from oceans. The water from fossil fuels represents therefore only a negligible particle of common increasing greenhouse effect because it is caught in much larger circulation of natural water. The entire cumulative produced water from fossil fuels is equally distributed among all other water masses on the Earth and mostly resides in oceans. But the essentially larger effect represents CO2 from the same source, although its mass is only 2,3 times larger than the mass of that water.

38

Carbon dioxide The article in the website NOAA (A.E.10) describes the composition of the atmosphere and among gases also the characteristics of CO2. The major reservoirs of carbon are in the atmosphere (750 GtC: 1 GtC is 109 metric tons of carbon); the land surface, in soils and vegetation, alive and decaying (2,200 GtC); and the ocean (40,000 GtC). The net annual exchanges of carbon per year among these reservoirs are quite small compared to the stored carbon, and so there are substantial uncertainties in the carbon budget. The main sources of CO2 are fossil fuel combustion, cement manufacture, decaying vegetation, and deforestation (less CO2 uptake by plants). The main sinks are photosynthesis and absorption within the ocean, leading to measurable acidification. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) estimates that from 2000-2005, the average annual net flux of CO2 from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere was approximately 7.2 GtC. Of that amount, 4.1 GtC remained in the atmosphere, 2.2 GtC was absorbed by the ocean, and 0.9 GtC went into the land. The numbers immediately above were net fluxes. The actual fluxes in each direction are much larger (see Fig. 7.3, p. 515, IPCC, 2007). For example, photosynthesis and absorption of CO2 in the ocean remove roughly 200 GtC per year from the atmosphere. That loss rate, compared with the atmospheric reservoir of 750 GtC, leads to a residence time of 3.8 years, about the time it would take for an atmospheric CO2 molecule to be dissolved in the ocean or taken up by plants. This is far different from the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, the time it takes for a sudden increase in CO2 to decay to 1/e (.368) of its original value. The latter is thought to be about 100 years. For now let's remember only that many other sources use only the numbers of pure fluxes and of increasing concentrations, what essentially reduces the possibility that a reader gets the feeling for danger of this happening. The other characteristic of this text is the uncertainty, what the units GtC mean – the quantities of pure carbon or carbon dioxide? The study of Machida, published on the website of University of California (A.E.11) describes the CO2 concentration measurements on different altitudes from 0 to 13 km, in different places of Japan, Indonesia and northern Australia. All measured values at all altitudes don't differ more than 2 ppm from middle values 365 - 366 ppm (in years before 2003). This means that CO2 in

39

troposphere (which includes 80 % of entire air mass) is dispersed very equitable. The same concentrations mean that with lowering air density proportionally lowers also the density of CO2. This data is important for calculation of absolute quantity of CO2 in atmosphere. The volume of troposphere at the average height 12 km is 6.173*106 km3. The average density of air between 1,35 kg/m3 (at sea level) and 0,30 kg/m3 (at 12 km), in the middle of troposphere is 0,66 kg/m3. The air mass in troposphere is therefore 4.074*1015 kg. For calculation of CO2 mass we must consider molecular masses and not only today's concentrations of CO2 in air 400 ppm. Molecular mass of CO2 is 44 and the average molecular mass of air is 29. The same numbers hold for mass (grams) per 1 mole. One mole of a substance contains always the same number of molecules, 6,02*1023 = NA (Avogadro's number). The mass proportion of equal number of molecules is therefore 44/29 = 1,517. And if we consider also the concentration 400 parts (molecules, moles) of CO2 per 1 million parts of air, we get the mass proportion of CO2 in the air 0,607 g/kg. The mass of CO2 in troposphere is therefore: 4074*1015 kg * 0,607 g/kg = 2473*1015 gram, respectively 2473*109 ton. In the troposphere resides 80 % of air mass. According to the equitable distribution is there probably also 80 % of CO2. The entire mass of CO2 in atmosphere is therefore 3.091*109 ton. If the concentration from equilibrium increased for 41 %, then the entire mass of CO2 in equilibrium was 2.192*109 ton. Some websites state the quantity of CO2 in atmosphere, which is closer to our calculated, therefore about 3.000 Gton. One of these, Sceptical Science (A.E.14) shows the graph of measurements in ice samples for the previous millennium and results of measurements of entire atmospheric CO2 quantity. So this is, what we must believe. The graph matches also with our calculation of equilibrium CO2 value in the past. Where is the failure?

40

Picture E.6 Human exhausts and quantities of CO2 in atmosphere for the previous millennium. The atmosphere contains today approximately 800 Gton of carbon and that means 2.940 Gton of CO2. Methane with its 200 times smaller concentration represents only a "small" mass of added carbon (but big effect, as shown later). Two main destinations of atmospheric CO2 are the photosynthesis of the land green plants with 451 and photosynthesis of phytoplankton in oceans (some name it ocean absorption) with 338 Gton CO2 annually, together therefore 789 Gton. From the entire mass of CO2 in atmosphere and plant absorption we can calculate the time in which the entire CO2 is removed from atmosphere and replaced with the new one, in the natural way from animal breathing, plant respiration and organism decay. 2940 Gton / 789 Gton/year = 3,7 years what is again far and much less from misleading "life time" of CO2 in atmosphere approximately 100 years.

41

The plant respiration The plant respiration is the process, with which the plants from the sugars created by photosynthesis acquire their energy – for keeping its temperate and for all bio-chemical reactions, which need energy. "Plant respiration occurs in the mitochondria of each plant cell. First, glucose is oxidized. The chemical potential energy of its bond turns into the chemical potential bonds of an ATP molecule. The ATP molecule is then transported throughout the cell. The molecule's stored energy is utilized to complete tasks within the cell." Actually this is the opposite process of photosynthesis with the final products water and carbon dioxide. But these both processes are not so simple and include number of intermediate steps and products, as they are amino acids, nucleotides, nuclein acids, energy carriers (i.e. ATP). There are also gene promotors, because that both processes produce numerous proteins for different enzymes of process itself, building cell environment and specific substances of individual tissues. The plant respiration occupies smaller extent as the photosynthesis, because part of the plant material serves as food for animals, which have similar metabolism with own respiration for building their substances and acquiring energy. Part of plant material decays with the age and changes in these two final products, too. Still much smaller part of the photosynthesis results serves to the human for direct oxidation (burning) and acquiring external energy. Therefore the claims that the energy plants are neutral from viewpoint of CO2 consumption and its production again at human acquiring energy, are completely untrue. The plants use from the atmosphere essentially more CO2 as with their usage the human leave in the air. The largest part of CO2 returns back in atmosphere with reusing sugars in plants themselves through the process of plant respiration. And consequently the plants also use large quantities of oxygen, not only produce it in photosynthesis. Therefore the production of human energy through the plant substances is very ineffective process. As we already saw, it requires for the same quantities of energy extremely large surfaces for growing the energy plants. The entire emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels, burning forests and gas consumption and leaking at fossil fuel transport amount 51 Gton annually. Several sources list, and it is possible to calculate from carbon cycle pictures the value of 25 to 30 Gton. But this is less from actual emission of only fossil fuels. The failure seems to be in ignorance of the entire deforestation. The real percent of human contribution to the entire flux of CO2 into atmosphere

42

(additionally to the natural equilibrium exchange) is for the nature huge 51/789 = 6,5 %. The difference between the entire equilibrium quantity 2.200 Gton to today's 3.000 Gton of CO2 in atmosphere is today approximately equal to the annual natural exchange. At today's exhaust quantities we have exceeded this equilibrium in 16 years. From the quantity 2.500 Gton, where the curve of accumulated CO2 has begun to rise really very steeply, we have achieved additional 500 Gton in 10 years. We see that the indifferent international climate agreements on few percents decreasing of CO2 exhaust in next decades are only the farce and pure eyewash to the people, who cannot (are to lazy to) search the information about really catastrophic situation.

METHANE Methane concentration compared with the air is almost constant to the altitude of 20 km (A.E.20). This means similarly as a CO2 that its distribution does not change at any air density. The proportion of molecular masses of methane and air is 16/29 = 0,55. In troposphere up to 12 km is according to the known mass of the air today's mass of methane: 4074*1015kg * 1,8ppm * 0,55 = 4074*1012ton * 1,8/106 * 0,55 = 4033*106 ton In the entire atmosphere 1/4 more methane exists, therefore 5.041 Gton. The article The methane Misconceptions on website (A.E.21) confirms our calculation. This description accurately explains 20 times larger greenhouse effect of methane from CO2, which according to the Table E.4 holds for 100 years. The comparison is based on the same quantities (masses!) of both gases. In essence this is correct, just we need to know that. Some apply this to the volumetric concentrations, respectively to the same number of molecules of both gases. Because it is easier the methane contains in equal mass 2,75 times more molecules as CO2. To any single molecule or to the same number of molecules comes 2,75 times smaller greenhouse effect, therefore 7 and for period of 20 years approximately 26. Wikipedia (A.E.3) publishes also the following overview of the effects of particular gases to the greenhouse radiation. Global warming potential (GWP) is the calculated factor, which relatively to (any mass of) CO2 expresses the quantity of the warmth, to which (the same mass of) the other gas prevents the

43

energy radiation in the space. We simply say - the methane has 25 times larger GWP in 100 years, respectively 25 times larger greenhouse effect as CO2. Gas Carbon dioxide Methane Nitrogen oxide CFC-12 HCFC-22 Tetrafluoromethane Hexafluoroethane Sulphur hexafluoride Nitrogen trifluoride

Chemical Life time formula (years) CO2 CH4 N2O CCl2F2 CHClF2 CF4 C2F6 SF6 NF3

30–95 12 114 100 12 50.000 10.000 3.200 740

Global warming potential (GWP) for given time period 20 years 100 years 500 years 1 1 1 72 25 7,6 289 298 153 11.000 10.900 5.200 5.160 1.810 549 5.210 7.390 11.200 8.630 12.200 18.200 16.300 22.800 32.600 12.300 17.200 20.700

Table E.4 The long term global warming potential (GWP) of particular greenhouse gases (A.E.3) Methane emissions from human sources (leaking oil gas, landfills, stock breeding, rice production...) and other natural sources (marshes, flooded area, termites…) are mostly known in the frame of increasing methane concentrations in atmosphere in last decades. But longer as the last decade many clear evidences and warnings appear that the biggest natural source of methane began to threat as the consequence of human activities – warming of all three global masses, atmosphere, land and oceans. In northern areas the temperatures rise much faster as averagely on other places of the Earth. The frozen surface of the land and sea bottom is melting some 10 meters deep, too. Countless lakes appear and from them visibly evaporate bubbles of the methane. The most of it is still caught under frozen cover of permafrost. On the land appear big eruptions, craters up to hundred meters in diameter and many 10 meters deep. Permafrost suddenly collapses under big inside pressures and through eruption escapes an unknown quantity of gas. Still later the gas escapes with lower pressure, when the part of material and water closes the crater. The biggest known crater, over 1 kilometer long and 100 meter deep, appeared suddenly already 20 years ago in east Siberia (Batagay). The scientists have connected it with melting permafrost and escaping methane, too. In the sea bottom methane hydrates are melting, under sediments frozen water with methane bubbles and molecules caught in..

44

The methane is 100 times stronger greenhouse gas as the carbon dioxide The molecules of greenhouse gases have different forms (A.E.19). The most simple are molecules of CO2 and N2O. Because of accidental molecule orientation in the space a lower possibility exists on appearance of the photon, which will hit with the correct frequency only those molecules, oriented in the direction of photon oscillation. Beside this, the bonds in these two molecules connect relatively heavier atoms and more energy and stronger photons are necessary to stimulate these bonds.

Picture E.8.1 The molecule forms of the carbon dioxide and methane and ways of swinging bonds and atoms (A.E.19) Methane has in its molecule 5 atoms, which are connected in all directions of the space. Many differently oriented photons with appropriate frequencies can trigger the vibrations of these bonds. The methane molecule has many intermediate and internal ways of swinging and oscillating bonds and atoms. Methane contains a large number of internal vibrational states, which accept energy from basic vibrations, caused by external photons. With this shift of energy the possibility to accept new external energy increases. The internal vibrations change their frequencies. When molecules radiate these energies, the other greenhouse gases can accept them in other spectral bands, in which the Earth is not radiating its energies. Very probably this is water, which has very wide and heterogeneous absorption spectrum, for the energies outside the warmth, infra red part, too. The capacity of methane for absorption energy is connected with its big quantity of inner energy, which releases when we use the gas as a fossil fuel. Big quantity of energy in bonds enables and demands larger quantities of external energy for increasing this inner energy. It releases a lot of energy when it cools down, too. The specific heat of methane is one of the

45

highest among the gases. It means that for warming it takes a lot of warmth (2,2 kJ/kgK, half of the water) and this also explains big quantities of absorbed energy to keep in atmosphere the same temperature as the surrounding gases, which demand less warmth.

Overlapping of methane and water absorption spectra Many articles just copy populist information about unimportance of methane in atmosphere because of overlapping its absorption spectrum with the spectrum of water. One of them is Methane: The Irrelevant Greenhouse Gas (A.E.18). The essential disinformation is not about covering both spectra, but that the water molecules prevent the methane to absorb energy. Its presence in atmosphere should not be important, because of its small quantity, too. But absolutely the overlapping of spectra is not essential. They tell only what vibrations of incoming energy the molecules (of certain substance) can absorb. This doesn't mean that all energy will be absorbed first by one substance and no energy will be then available for the other substance – and therefore its effect is unimportant. All molecules are equally spread and mixed around the space and the energy is equally available to all.

Picture E.8.2 Absorption bands of the atmosphere and of the particular greenhouse gases. Usually the bands are expressed with wave lengths (L) and not with the frequencies (F). The connection is: C = L * F, respectively L = C / F. The travelling speed of EM waving (C) is constant 300.000 km/s.

46

But true is that the absorption spectra of water and methane don't overlap completely. The central frequencies of two methane absorption bands lay on the borders of water bands. The half of methane spectrum is still in the region, where the water conducts EM frequencies. On the other sides of these two water "gaps" the infra red frequencies are hindered by CO2 similarly and still more expressively. Comparing the water and the common atmosphere spectra we can see that well. The common spectrum is obviously wider. Therefore in the bands of its absorption the methane keeps much more frequencies as the water. Absolute increasing of common effect is obvious too, what points to essentially higher greenhouse effect of methane, compared with water.

Eruptions and explosions of gas on the land We have already mentioned big gas eruptions in Siberian tundra and craters which appear with this in last years. Research, data or even only estimations, how much methane or natural gas can escape through such explosion are not available. At very rough assumptions a user of website Real Climate (A.E.22) tried to calculate this. For a crater in diameter 80 m and depth of 100 m he took that only that methane escaped, which has been gathered in the crater itself under a 20 m dick cover. From the weight of rock in this cover he assumed that the pressure of 10 bars could lift them. And at this pressure the mass of the methane in this volume should approximately 3.000 ton. Here we cannot assume lifting of the cover. If the pressure lifted it like a lid it should be still firm and such quantity of methane would escape in very short time. Also if the cover braked in numerous cracks, it would have to collapse back into the crater entirely. If such quantity of methane had been present, it would escape through the cracks of relative thin cover already before, as it leaks in smaller quantities all the time on the entire Arctic surface. The scattered material around the crater shows that it had to come to the instant lift of much larger quantity of material from larger depth, at probable collapse of permafrost, but with much larger pressure. Larger quantity of material, which had lifted through the crater upwards and thrown aside the upper material, had fallen back into the crater after the pressure diminished. The crater has been closed with porous and much less compact material. We see the increasing of lower material pressure also from slowly lifting tundra surface in form of "pingos". The cracked surface would certainly leak the gas and diminish the pressure already before the explosion, if deeper would not reside larger material masses.

47

Picture E.9.1 Permafrost...

Picture E.9.2 One of methane eruption craters on the Yamal peninsula in west Siberia. The second factor, which could contribute significantly to the development of conditions for such explosions is increasing pressure in the gas reservoirs due gasification of heavier hydrocarbons (butane), which have boiling point near 0 deg.C and have been in the liquid state before increasing environmental temperatures. This way could act also the gases, caught in hydrates.

48

Picture E.9.3 The biggest known landslide, connected with methane eruptions in east Siberia. That around is not the grass, but dense taiga forest. The length – 1 mile and depth 100 meters

Picture E.9.4 Pingo – lifting of permafrost surface, before it collapses in gas eruption. Near we see the beginnings of a smaller one. Therefore the area of the high gas pressure is larger as limited to one single crater. Data onto Russian gas acquisition (A.E.23) tell that in Siberia the mixtures of earth gases reside in the depths from some hundred meters down to maximum 3 kilometers. In the deposits of pure gas the pressures can be 200 to 300 bars and temperatures over 100 deg.C. At these pressures also lighter gases can liquify. They offer a formula for simple pressure calculation, which is proportionally dependent on the depth in the deposit. If we recalculate it into meters and bars we get the conversion factor approximately 0,1. This means that the pressure is

49

created by a liquid of the similar weight as the water has – every 10 meters 1 bar. The pressures upwards can be created only by gases, for on the top of reservoir no pressure of the liquid exists. When pumping it out the hot liquid gets more space, the pressure lowers and the liquid gasifies. It can gasify as well if the path upwards opens in an eruption and big gas pressures don't hold it downwards any more. At pumping, taking away of gas is still controlled but at the explosion the path releases much more. If a lot of gases exist in top space of the reservoir, this mass can keep pressure and the broken rocky material above it for longer time. Simultaneously the gasification can contribute to the slower pressure drop… At lowering pressure the stone mass can also slip into reservoir and disappear there. The path opens for smaller pressures, too. In this way could escape a large part of entire reservoir. Can we estimate, how much? Under the largest Russian gas field Urengoy they estimate gas stocks to the 1013 m3 (A.E.24). The annual production of the entire region 260*109 m3 of gas mean daily 70*103 ton. On the Yamal peninsula (therefore in Urengoy too) the average daily production of one well is from 0,5 to 0,7*106 m3, respectively 80 ton (A.E.25). Dividing daily production of the entire field with production of one well gives us the number of wells in the field 1.100. Probably is this number correct, because the concessionaire reports that only in the year 2013 they overhauled 251 wells (A.E.26). The connections between larger deposits probably exist, from which several wells are pumping. If we take a reservoir corresponding to one well and its average 5 year production of 875.000 ton of gas (in all this time we can calculate with average value, although the actual production diminishes with the time), this means emptying to the degree, when the gas cannot exit in the satisfying quantity, even if they push it with water injection, too. We can take this value as possible quantity of the gas that could escape from the crater at the explosion and after it. In thousand explosions 1 Gton of the as could escape. For now (2016) they found some ten craters. But what will happen when the temperatures will still rise, no one can imagine. Actually no one knows what is really happening. Photos of the walls deeper in craters reveal the compact stone and no permafrost or broken and later melted hydrates. There absolutely any one cannot claim that only a small quantity of gases escaped and that this is not important to climate changes. One way of research would be deep sounding of the terrain around craters. If the empty reservoirs have been found, it would be already a satisfactory answer. In case of no or still full reservoirs in depth it will really mean escaping of shallower stored gas, easier accessed by warming. It will be necessary to research further, in how big area around the crater the leaking from smaller sources stopped. This will be the sign that larger and connected surface stocks have been released through one single crater.

50

The methane in sea bottom We have already described the additional influx of warmth energy into the polar regions, first of all the Arctic. Consequently the warming Arctic sea melts its own bottom, where the methane is stored in layers of methane hydrates (clathrates). These are in the frozen crystal structure of the water caught methane bubbles and molecules. A decade ago this releasing gas in smaller quantities was still melting the frozen sea surface and exiting through these holes into the atmosphere. But today has the extent of the ice already reduced so much that the escaping has expanded to much larger surfaces of the sea. Some articles and research, for example CAGE (A.E.27), focus on denying of influence of mostly methane from sea to the atmosphere and greenhouse. They claim that most of escaped gas dissolves in the water and doesn't reach the atmosphere. Dissolving in the water can go only till the certain level, as the absorption of water vapour in air or salt in water. When the quantity of dissolved methane in water exceeds this marginal concentration, the water cannot hold the gas on the level of equal molecular distribution. Larger parts of the gas, bubbles begin to concentrate and exit. The saturation of poisoning gas in the water diminishes very much the possibilities of preservation and development of the life in the Arctic sea, too. Solubility of methane in water is a similar characteristic as capability of air for absorption water, only it is reversed – in colder water more methane can be dissolved. Near 0 deg.C in the pure water can be dissolved maximal 0,04 gram of methane in 1 kg of water, this is 40 g/ton (A.E.33). The molecular masses of water and methane are similar and the volumetric proportion of saturation is therefore similar 40 ppm. In the salt water the other substances are present, too and the possibilities of absorption methane are smaller. But let's take these numbers for beginning. If before the measurements in the Arctic ocean was pure water and all escaping methane dissolved in it until the reached saturation, in the water would dissolve per day 3 tons of methane in 1 km2 of averagely 100 meters deep region (the numbers of later presented measurements). Annually this would be 1.095 tons, respectively 11 ppm, according to the mass of water in this water column 108 tons. It would last about 3,5 years that the methane would reach the maximal concentration. From that point forward, already today the entire escaping methane would have to pass through the water into the atmosphere. If in the winter and spring season the methane would be kept under frozen sea surface, it has to be released, when in the summer and autumn all the ice in these coastal seas melts. If during this time less methane has been dissolved, it will take

51

longer till the saturation was reached. All the rest methane already had to escape in the air. The stories about unlimited capacity of the ocean to keep methane are (probably paid) nonsense.

Picture E.10 Solubility of methane in pure water (A.E.33) Already in 2010 the Russian researchers (Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov group) estimated the methane stocks only under the East Siberian shelf (ESAS): • organic carbon in permafrost 500 Gton • methane in hydrates 1.000 Gton • free methane under stable hydrates 700 Gton. These are commonly 450 times larger quantities as the current mass of methane in atmosphere 5 Gton. The entire world stocks are 3.000 Gton. They predicted also the possibility of very near and fast release 50 Gton of methane in the atmosphere. In August 2014 in the northern part of the northern hemisphere in very large regions of Siberia, north Canada and Alaska the satellite measurements showed methane concentrations at 6.000 meters altitude over 2.000, up to 2.450 ppb (A.E.28). The largest such region was in East Siberian Sea, estimated to approximately 1 million km2. This lifted the global average methane value already to 1.850 ppb. The region seems of the same size as half of western Siberia, approximately 1 million km2.

52

Picture E.11 The region of measured highly increased methane concentration in 2014 If in one year above so large region the concentration raised from average 1.800 to 2.400 ppm, this means the increase of 33 %. The mass of the air in troposphere of this region with the average density of 0,66 kg/m3 is 7,9*1015 kg. The molecular mass proportion of methane and air is 16 / 29 = 0,55 and the quantity of methane in this air mass is: 7,9*1015 kg * 1800 ppb * 0,55 = 7,9*1015 kg * 1800/109 * 0,55 = 7820*106 kg = 7,8*109 kg New: 7,9*1015 kg * 2400 ppb * 0,55 =10,4*109 kg The added difference is only 2,6 Mton, respectively 0,05 % of all methane in atmosphere. Old:

In years 2011 to 2013 the Russians have reviewed with the sonar and deep sampling two 6.400 and 2.500 km2 big areas western of New Siberian Islands

53

(A.E.29). The first area (P1) lays actually in a 33.000 km2 big rectangle (calculation with considering the geographical coordinates and distances on given latitude), on the part of sea without ice. The surface of reviewed area is simply the product of ship's path length and the sonar reach width. In the discovered seeps of raising bubbles they measured three different average densities of methane fluxes from the bottom toward sea surface, 31, 88 and 176 grams/m2 in one day. They calculated the quantity of released methane in the entire reviewed area. For P1 the minimal common quantity was 1,94*104 ton/day, what gives the average minimal flux of 3,03 ton/km2, respectively 3 g/m2 in one day. Assuming that the region behaves similarly as reviewed area, the entire rectangle releases at least: 3,03 ton/(km2*day) * 33*103 km2 = 100.000 ton/day In the entire year the reviewed area releases 7,08 Mton and the rectangle at least 36,5 Mton/year

Picture E.12 Sonar records of releasing methane from Arctic sea bottom. The particular seeps have up to 100 meters in diameter. The red colour represents flaring of water with big density and big methane bubbles. Previously mentioned 1 million km2 big region would release at the same average methane emissions annually 1,1 Gton. Where did the difference appear between the previous calculation of 2,6 Mton? This larger region is on the open sea, it is deeper and on the bottom colder with lower intensity of releasing methane. The picture E.13 confirms this, too. It shows that this region has kept the unchanged temperature of surface waters. On the bottom the releasing starts probably in limited zones. In one year probably a lot of gas has been blown away with winds and the concentration then stabilized at 2,4 ppm. The starting concentration could be also different from the average, but this cannot have big influence. But anyway, the Russian researchers have shown and measured, how big methane fluxes are possible and in how big regions

54

methane is already releasing. Sooner or later it will come to such big intensities also in bigger regions. Let's take one more example of expansion of these measured methane emissions. The coastal regions of East Siberian and Laptev Sea, 300 km wide as far also the measurements have been done, is approximately 2.000 km long. The region is similar as the test area, shallower from former 1 million km2 and much warmer. Therefore larger possibility exists that hydrates begin to melt sooner, if they are not already melting as in test area. The entire region is warmed on the surface for approximately 2 to 4 degrees C. And still an other danger exists. The test area is located just opposite, 200 kilometers away of delta of river Lena and here the waters are colder, warmed only for 1 to 1,5 degrees above the historical equilibrium. If in the test area existed so high methane fluxes, they would have to be in the coastal regions of East Siberian seas (in the presence of hydrates) still higher. But let's stay at the same. From the entire region therefore annually escape 600.000 km2 * 3 ton/km2 * 365 = 657*106 ton = 0,66 Gton The measurements of the area P1 have been done in years 2011 to 2013. In three years till today (2016) the methane emissions certainly haven't reduced, except if all of it has already escaped. But according to the estimated stocks this is not very probable. Together with years of measurements, at least 4 Gtons of methane could escape from the entire coastal East Siberian and Laptev Sea. This is in the year 2014 almost equal as the official data give today's quantity of methane in the atmosphere. On the Picture E.14 we see, how the methane from hydrates is dissolving in the sea and in pure water at low pressures (which correspond to small water depths) and at temperatures a little above 0 deg.C. This means that the hydrates melt already at these low temperatures, where they are present. Continuation of this characteristic into lower pressures and depths, where the Russians have performed their measurements shows that hydrates can melt already at approximately 0 deg.C, where the sea water still doesn't freeze.

55

Picture E.13 The temperature changes in Arctic ocean in 2014

Picture E.14 Stability of methane hydrates in dependence on the temperature and depth (pressure) of the water (A.E.34)

56

Methane

Oxidation in CO2

(%) 3,4

Equivalent of CO2 for 20 years (*1012 kg) 24,5

4,6

3,3

23,8

0,91

6 Tg 0,006

0,088

0,06

0,43

0,017

100 Tg 0,1

1,4

1,0

7,2

0,28

Emissions and consumption at transport of oil and gas

661 bcm

8,75

6,2

8,75 (3)

Minimal prediction from coastal ESAS Together (1)

657 Mton 0,66

9,7

6,9

47,5

29,2

20,8

111,8

Middle prediction from coastal Arctic seas Together (2)

6,57 Gton 6,57

96,6

69,0

473,0

116,1

82,9

537,3

Natural (IPCC) From human activities (IPCC) From hydrates and permafrost (IPCC) From hydrates and permafrost (Arctic News)

Emissions (orig.unit, *1012 kg) 340 Tg 0,34 331 Tg 0,33

Energy value (*1012 kWh) 4,7

Lost energy

(*1012 kg) 0,94

1,82

18,07

Table E.5 Overview of methane emissions from natural sources and human activities. We added predictions if already measured fluxes from sea bottom expand upon wider regions. (1) Only expansion of measured to East Siberian Sea (2) For comparison included calculation from conclusion (3) See Table E.12.2

57

Picture E.15 The estimated distribution of methane emissions with considering more real Arctic situation as the IPCC does.

Greenhouse parameters The table E.4 shows the global warming potential (GWP) of greenhouse gases for different time periods. Different values, especially for methane appear because of changing and washing out the gases, which have been released in the atmosphere. The atmospheric chemical reactions mostly slowly decrease the quantities of existing gases. But the influxes from the Earth's surface are much bigger and the common gas quantities increase. The GWP values are for the certain period average and also relative, according to the CO2 greenhouse effect. And because the quantities of CO2 in longer periods decrease and its potential diminishes too, the GWP values of especially resistant gases even increase in longer periods. The methane oxidizes (as at burning of fossil fuels) into CO2 and water. Only because of lower temperatures this process is much slower. Probably the intensive short term circumstances in atmosphere, which cause high temperatures of the air, help to this, like thunderbolts and aircraft engines. Changing of nitrogen and sulphur gases creates acids, which are removed from atmosphere with precipitation. The calculation of GWP is based on the relative forcing (RF) of the particular gas. This parameter tells, how big is in the non-equilibrium the difference between the absorbed energy of the Earth and radiated back to the space. Correctly the RF should be measured at the edge of the atmosphere but IPCC uses for calculation the data from the tropopause (10 to 12 km altitude). They calculate RF for particular gases numerically with consideration absorption spectra of particular substances (which wave length of warmth energy a substance absorbs and which it conducts through), quantity of substance in

58

atmosphere, energy properties of molecules and adding these influences through the particular layers with the same concentrations. The scientific calculation is quite complex and for the CO2 and methane they give values of +1,66 and +0,48 W/m2. The positive values mean calculated difference between energy fluxes back to the Earth (the contribution to the warming of the planet) and the negative larger contribution to radiation energy from the Earth away. The same mass of the methane has in "short period" of 20 years 72 times larger greenhouse effect as CO2. For example, if some quantity of CO2 causes 100 W of greenhouse radiation, the same mass of methane will cause 7,2 kW. But this mass of methane is dispersed in much larger space. According to the concentrations the same volume of the air contains approximately 200 times more CO2 molecules and therefore in this volume CO2 will still have larger effect. If a higher GWP value deals for the period of 20 years, it means that in this period the same mass of methane will redirect back to the Earth 72 times more energy as CO2. At least this deals for any shorter period and for the temporary and average greenhouse radiation power, too.

THE ESCAPE OF CLIMATE CHANGES The proportion of absolute masses CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is 3100 Gton CO2 / 5 Gton CH4 = 620. The threefold difference between the proportion of concentration (400 ppm / 1,8 ppm = 222) appears because of proportion of molecular masses 44/14 = 2,75. Therefore the concentration and masses match. GWP deals for equal masses. This 72 times larger methane effect will diminish because of its much smaller common mass: 620 (times larger CO2 mass) / 72 (times larger CH4 effect) = 8,6 Respectively in this moment in atmosphere the common mass of CO2 still holds back 8,6 times more energy as the methane does. If we want to equalize their effects, we should • Reduce the quantity of CO2 in the air for more than 8 times. In the short time this is really not an easy task. Even at exhausts we cannot agree for such a change. • Increase the quantity of methane for 8 times. This can happen quite "naturally" and relatively quickly. It would mean then 40 Gton of methane in atmosphere and that is already very close to the Russian predicted release of 50 Gton.

59

•

Change quantities of both gases in the necessary directions.

Therefore if the second case happens, in both greenhouse gases will stop so much warmth that the greenhouse back radiation will amount approximately 600 W/m2 instead today's 340 W/m2. If the increase of greenhouse radiation from the equilibrium value of 230 W/m2 to today's 340 W/m2 (110 W/m2 difference) caused raising of average planet temperature for 1,5 deg.C and still much more in polar regions, this additional difference 260 W/m2 will cause additional temperature increase for approximately 3,5 degrees. We have already calculated that actual warming of lower troposphere for 1 degree caused the measured increasing of moisture in the air for 6 %. This additional temperature jump will mean the common surplus of 4,5 degrees and possibility for additional moisture absorption of 1,35 grams per kg of air. As before, let's calculate the additional absorption for all air mass up to altitude of 5 km. 1,35 g/kg * 2572*1015 kg = 3472*1015g That is volumetrically 3.472 km3 of water. This means for 27 % increased capacity of air for absorption of water according to the equilibrium state. The temperature increase will cause increasing of water evaporation from oceans and saturation of atmosphere with water vapour and clouds. This additional "capability" of the atmosphere will be easily fulfilled from the oceans. Actually the atmosphere will not permit direct solar radiation. The cloud layer will keep more warmth on the Earth's surface. The temperature will rise. More methane will be released and it will keep more warmth. The temperature will rise. And we come again to larger absorption, evaporation, clouds, darkness… The life without direct solar light, with very reduced photosynthesis will die. The production of oxygen from the only available source on the Earth – from the green plants - will decrease steeply. Actually the production of oxygen has decreased today already for approximately 1/3, because of destruction of the forests and of the ocean green plankton. But we still don't feel it. According to the consumption, the atmosphere contains very big stocks of oxygen. CO2 and methane will additionally release from dying nature and Arctic depths. Higher temperatures will activate other chemical reactions, which will from natural materials and human waste synthesise new, today unknown greenhouse or poisoning gases. The atmosphere will become impermeable for thermal radiation. The growing temperature will increase the quantity of water in atmosphere. The vicious cycle (positive feedback loop) will close with the full power and it will not be possible to break it and repair the consequences.

60

This scenario is known already today as the escape of climate changes. Many printed and electronic media seriously mention and warn that it is high time for humanity to stop contributing at least its own part to this warming, for example, Climate Emergency Institute (A.E.30). Maybe the nature will be then benevolent to us and it will appease its own gaining mechanisms. First of all we stop making illusions that we can save the situation with our thoughtless and still in profit oriented (bio) technical solutions like geoengineering interventions (spraying atmosphere, fertilizing oceans, capture and store CO2…). With our ignorance of small changes and continuation of countless small contributions into the global energetic budget we already reached the critical situation. The particular factors, which contribute to warming, began to amplify each other and not only their common goal. Other factors and events contribute to big Arctic methane releasing, too. In one year to 14th July 2016 up to 50 earthquakes affected the fault line between Greenland and Svalbard Islands, crossing the Iceland, too (A.E.31). The strongest on 9th and 12th July had 4,5 and 4,7 degree on Richter. On 15th July they measured (again on 6.000 m altitude) a big region of methane concentrations up to 2.600 ppb eastern of Greenland. The concentrations have increased also along the entire fault line around the Arctic ocean. This proves that earthquakes can also destabilize big regions of (already melting) methane hydrates and release its big quantities. In the summer this year (2016) the entire Arctic region suffered numerous storms. This was consequence of huge unnatural cyclone of low air pressure, which probably developed because of overheating the Arctic atmosphere and lifting the air (A.E.32.A). The winds were so strong that they caused under the frozen sea surface several meters large waves, which broke the ice in countless smaller plates. Too warm water got in this way more contact with the ice and accelerated its melting.

Wood fires and burning forests The same website (A.E.32.B) in an other article reports on catastrophic wood fires in Siberia. Simultaneously with Arctic storms, several years lasting drought continued especially in the central Siberia. Dry vegetation in taiga and tundra enables countless wood fires during the entire warm part of the year. Satellite archive photos (0.12) clearly show sources of thousand kilometer long smoke clouds. Zooming photos reveals big brown burnt areas behind the fires. The fires stopped mostly at the end of September. The archive shows for previous years similar pictures. Although some scientists claim that the fires are

61

one of natural mechanisms of renewing taiga, it is obvious that their increased number and intensities are the consequences of too big warming of northern regions and that they only destroy forests. The boreal Earth's lungs are dying, too. The fires again release huge quantities of carbon and nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere. They probably increase the global known exhausts from the source of natural fires and human artificial burning forests very much. Deforestation (loss of forests) has therefore two sources, the natural fires and intentional human cutting and/or burning for acquisition of agriculture surfaces. The global sources list mostly the estimated reducing of forest surfaces, but rarely the destruction of natural forests and planting back with plantations or renovation of natural forests. Almost impossible is to find data, in which way the forests have been destroyed from human side and if the wood has been at least used for good instead burnt. We can estimate the quantity of lost energy, released at burning forests, from the simple mentioned data that this burning produces 1/3 of all CO2 exhausts being the consequence of human activities (1.1.1). Therefore the fossil fuels cause the rest 2/3 of exhausts. Back calculation from the estimated emissions in the Table E.7 shows that this is together 33*109 ton CO2. We will not consider the bio mass energy because the growth of the plants for this aim takes from the air the similar quantity of CO2. Burning forests emits therefore 16,5*109 ton CO2. This represents all together 42,3*1012 kWh in the air released energy or approximately 30 % of the entire human energy. If all this wood mass had been burned in ovens, we would save a half of fossil fuels and emit 1/3 less CO2. But this is not the solution for the nature. Let's try to check this rough estimation. A part of my own research about transfers of raw materials between the developed and poor world were also the wood trade currents. In the foreground of interest were first of all the estimations, which parts of natural materials travel from poor to the rich countries and what parts are used at home, compared with number of inhabitants in both parts of the world. One result was the wood for energy – 8,4*109 m3 cut in the poor world at the global cut quantity 9,0*109 m3. The trade currents are not big. According to that 85 % of people live in poor world, it is logically that this part of humanity searches the cheap energy at home. Data have been collected for period of 5 years, from 2006 to 2010. From this, 3,0*109 m3 have been cut in Africa, three times more than average per capita. But this is not interesting here. The average wood density in Africa is 226 m3/ha. To cut this quantity, 2,65*106 hectares have been destroyed annually. And this is almost the entire shown annual deforestation in Africa (2,81*106 ha).

62

In Africa the annual production of wood was 3,5*109 m3 / 5 = 700*106 m3 in that time. (A lower quantity for pulpe shown in tons we can neglect.) And for this entire quantity they have to cut 3,01*106 hectares. Already this is larger surface from shown deforestation. But because the reports, articles and satellite photos show big surfaces of burning forests, is obviously that there is much more actually destroyed forests. The shown deforestation is essentially too small and the entire wood production is not included into it. Deforestation and its consequences have been calculated for the period from 1990 forward. For the surface of lost forests in Africa, south-east Asia and South America the source was the website Mongabay with data from the FAO report 2015 (A.E.52), and for Canada and US the national forest organizations (A.E.53) and (A.E.54). Next three sources (A.E.55) to (A.E.57) enabled the calculation of average wood masses in the forests of particular regions and the quantity of wood in destroyed forests. Although for tropical forests no data have been found that all wood in the lost forests would be burnt, we have calculated also for them the energy potentially released at burning and the consequent emission of CO2. The data which talk on behalf of burning are small surfaces of forests planted back (A.E.52). In Indonesia they restored 25 % of forests and in South America and Africa only a few percent. It seems that the plantations of oil palms are not counted as forests. They are really not according to the way of industrial growing, even the exchange of CO2 and oxygen is probably similar as in the forests. For North America and Siberia the data show only the burnt forests and the quantities of released energy and CO2 are reliable. It seems that for the tropical forests we would make the smallest error, if for the listed deforestation we considered that the half was burnt and from the other half they removed the wood and used it. If for the wood production a larger surface is necessary as one half of the deforestation, the loss of tropical forests shall actually increase for that difference. But at the calculation of burdening atmosphere this doesn't interest us. Therefore we took half of the entire deforestation wood mass for calculation of energy and emissions from burning. The energy and emissions from the wood, cut for warming, is also interesting. Because this mass is known, we don't need the surfaces for that and we can calculate with the entire global number. From 5 years period we get the annual average of 1,8*109 m3 or 1.080 Mton (for warming probably hard wood). Therefore from the available data about burning forests and natural fires on different continents and regions, which are the most affected, we calculated, estimated and summed the upper limit of approximately two times smaller CO2 emissions and two times less released energy from these sources, as this part of emissions was estimated by Al Gore. The upper limit means that in tropical forests we counted separately the deforestation in sense of burning forests and

63

additionally cut wood for energy. This shows only one more time that at using data we cannot blindly rely to the most eminent persons, too. Sometimes we simply overlook other sources and then the effects (the difference to the whole) ascribe to that same reason, we see only. Deforestation, cut or burnt (period) Canada natural fires US natural fires Siberianatural fires (2013-2015) Centr. Africa (1990-2015) SE Asia (1990-2015) S. America (1990-2015) Globally cut wood for energy 2006-2010 Together (1)

Surface, Wood mass (ann. aver.) ( *106 ) !!!!! 2,25 ha 153 ton 2,2 ha 266 ton 18,0 ha, 4.800 ton 2,81ha 379 ton 1,65 ha 350 ton 3,65 ha 817 ton 1.800 m3 1.080 ton

Potent. annual deforestation tropical + wood for energy Together (2)

2.626 ton

Common estimation Gore & other

1/3 of all emission CO2

Produced energy (*1012 kWh) 0,40

Percent of human energy (%) 0,29

Common emission CO2 & water (*1012 kg) 0,16

0,69

0,49

0,27

12,5

8,90

4,90

1,14 * 0,5 = 0,57 1,05 * 0,5 = 0,52 2,45 * 0,5 = 1,22 3,20

0,40

0,22

0,37

0,20

0,87

0,48

2,30

1,25

19.1

13,6

7,45

7,84

5,6

3,05

21,4

15,2

8,35

42,3

29,8

16,5

Table E.6 From destroying of forests originated energy and emissions. The calculation factor for wood from energy to CO2 emission is 0,39 kg/kWh.

64

One such hidden sources of emissions – the consumption of fossil fuels at their transport and leaking of gas fractions in the atmosphere – we will still analyse in continuation. But already now it can be told that the global sum of these emissions and used energy, together with emissions of burning all forest together represents approximately the same value as the Gore's estimation of only burning forests was…

HUMAN ENERGY PRODUCTION Today people produce 140*1012 of energy in a year, mostly from fossil fuels. From the alternative sources only the solar converters (PV cells, reflection power plants, warmth collectors) use the direct solar radiation falling on the Earth's surface. The energy, they convert into electricity or into the temperature increase of warmth media, is not directly absorbed into Earth's surface. But the losses stay as warmth in the environment. The growth of the plants for bio mass and bio fuels uses the direct solar light as catalyzer and energy source for connecting simple nonorganic molecules into complex organic structures, which represent the foundation for the life. Absorption of this part of solar energy means its accumulation in the chemical bonds of organic substances. With cooperation of other living organisms in the soil the plants concentrate the substances (wood, seed oils), from which we get the energy with burning them. We can say that over the bio mass we acquire a part of in the Earth's surface and vegetation accumulated solar energy. But the life does not create these substances for us to warm with them. Our "effectiveness" of burning the life is horribly low. From the bio mass we get much less energy as it has been accumulated, because again a lot of waste substances appear, which still contain a part of accumulated solar energy. We pump the geothermal energy from the Earth's crust and cause its cooling and increased energy flux from the inside. From its inside the Earth radiates the total warmth power of 44,2 TW. In a year this is 387*1012 kWh of energy, what is 2,5 times more than the people produce. Therefore in the Earth's energetic budget it is not negligible. We can say that this is the entire natural geothermal energy. Averagely according to the entire Earth's surface this power means 86 mW/m2, what is a very small amount of energy. More of it is available at geologic fault lines, where the melted magma comes nearer to the surface. In the Appendix F it is shown with an understandable calculation that

65

we exploit the stocks of the warmth of the heated crust and not the direct energy flux from the inside. The exhausted warmth of certain regions or "warmth reservoirs" will have to be replaced with increased inflow of the warmth from inside. We can say that the exploitation of geothermal energy means for exact value of acquired energy increased natural flux from Earth's inside. According to the quantity of produced and burnt fossil fuels, the thermal, greenhouse and environmental pollution, because of burning oil gas on the oil fields, and because of acquisition of agriculture surfaces with burning forests is important, too. As the consumption of fossil fuels, these both make much more damage with releasing greenhouse gases as with releasing energy. Burning forests releases some of accumulated solar energy. The greenhouse gases and energy would be released also with decay of this life and decomposition of organic substances. In complex organic processes the appearing new life would simultaneously use those decomposed substances and energy in natural ways. The emissions and radiation would be reduced. For Earth's energetic budget it is essential that increasing quantity of greenhouse gases in atmosphere decreases the permeability of atmosphere for radiation of entire absorbed and reflected solar energy, together with much smaller part of warmth from fossil fuels and from Earth's inside. The greenhouse effect holds on the Earth much larger quantity of energy, as by the human additionally produced warmth is. The energy which the Earth must additionally radiate beside the accumulated (and partly from the side of human used) solar energy, contains burning of fossil and nuclear fuels, natural cooling of the Earth and pumped out geothermal energy. Solar alternative sources, wind and geothermal energy represent only few hundredths to tenths of percent of the entire human energy and therefore are in the context of global energy fluxes totally negligible. Solar sources take a part of direct solar radiation and reduce – what? Absorption of Earth's surface or reflection of solar radiation from this surface? If the cells, collectors and mirrors have been installed in green environment, they would probably reduce the absorption. But if we more probably (massively) set them in dry and desert environments, which warm fast and with low vegetation and light colours don't allow a lot of absorption, those receivers will reduce the reflection. This would be well to remember, when we will begin to acquire a lot of human energy from these sources. The absorption will be the same in other environment and the surface with receivers will reflect less. Therefore the Earth's surface will over the solar electricity and warmth accept for this part more energy – the same as today from fossil fuels.

66

Alternative energy sources

Produced energy / Installed power (orig. units)

Produced energy (*1012 kWh) 2006 (2009)

Hydro power plants

2006 (2009) 3.035 TWh

Wind generators Photovoltaic cells (PV) Reflection power plants (CSP) Geothermal energy Bio mass – traditional warming Bio mass – modern usage bio fuels warming electricity losses Tide and waves

3,035

Percent of human energy (%) 2006 (2009) 2,200

130 TWh

0,130

0,090

8.000 MW (21.000 MW) 550 MW (planned 30.000 MW) 60 TWh

0,020 0,053 0,005 0,263

0,014 0,037 0,003 0,190

0,520

0,370

724 Mtoe

8,400

6,000

462 Mtoe

3,980

2,800

24 Mtoe 293 Mtoe 81 Mtoe 64 Mtoe < 1 TWh

0,210 2,530 0,700 0,550 < 0,001

0,150 1,800 0,500 0,390 < 0,001

16,091

11,500 11,700

140,000

100,000

86 mW/m2

387,000

276,000

340 W/m2

732.000,000

Together

Human produced energy Naturalgeothermal radiation Influx of solar energy

Table E.7 From the alternative sources annually produced energy (A.E.35) and comparison with the entire human, entire Earth's and entire from Sun accepted energy. 1 Mtoe is the energy, contained in 1 million ton of oil.

67

Reflection means mostly the light and radiation the warmth. The light travels through the atmosphere also in opposite direction easier and don't warm the greenhouse gases so much. The converted warmth instead the light does. So the energetic budget of the Earth will be still for a big part of human produced (although the solar) energy shifted from the historical equilibrium. But with this energy production we will not emit the greenhouse gases and that is much more important. The hydro and wind power plants use the solar energy caught into the movement of water and air masses. Taking this from environment means lowering this accumulation and returning the warmth back will balance it. Energy source

Oil Coal Gas Fossil together Nuclear

Produced energy

Produced energy

(orig. units) 2008

(*1012kWh)

3.960 Mtoe 3.300 Mtoe 2.720 Mtoe

620 Mtoe

Percent of human energy (%) 2008

Emission factor CO2, water (kg/kWh)

46,7 38.9 32,1 117,7

32,9 22,6 27,4 83,6

0,24 0,10 0,37 0,16 0,23 0,13 (0,279)

7,2

5,0

2008

Common emission CO2, water (*1012 kg) 2008 11,2 14,4 7,4 33,0

4,67 6,22 4,17 5,06

Table E.8 From conventional sources produced human energy (A.E.3). For conversion from all sources into energy units the same factor must be used as for the oil, because the unit Mtoe represents the energetic equivalent of a million tons of oil.

Burning, leaking, losses and internal consumption of the natural gas In connection with burning oil gas, coming out with the oil or excreting from it later, and with the consequent emissions, we find the information about the countries, the largest polluters with CO2 from these sources on the website (A.E.40). The common quantity is approximately 120*109 m3 of the burnt gas each year. Technologies for satellite observations of this wasting energy have progressed too, and they confirm these data (A.E.41). On the website Friends of

68

Earth (A.E.42) we read 168*109 m3 of burnt gas, what gives 420*106 ton of the released CO2. Sadly this is not all. In the report of International Energy Agency 2004 for Russia (A.E.43) we see their emissions of CO2 from burning oil gas. But more than 2,5 times larger quantities of CO2 originate from gas combustion in the compressors for moving the same gas through gas pipelines (some oil pipelines run on light crude oil, but mostly on electricity). And additionally two times larger greenhouse effect, measured in equivalent of CO2, is caused by leaking of earth gas (methane) from pipelines, compressors, distribution system and burning stations. Therefore Russia from the fossil fuels, without their consumption, emits the equivalent of approximately 300 Mton CO2 - 7 times more as at burning the gas itself.

Leaking CH4 from gas pipelines and compressors Leaking CH4 from distribution system Emission CO2 from combustion in compressors Emission CO2 from burning oil gas

Combustion Equivalent and leaking CO2 (bcm = 109 m3) (*106 ton) 6,2 93 5,3 80 41,0 82 15,0 43 298

Table E.9 Russian emissions at transport of oil and gas. Also the burning gas is a part of transport, because it is the consequence of exiting gas from the oil in oil pipelines and causes dangerous increasing of pressure in tubes. If from leaking methane and given equivalent of CO2 we calculate the conversion factor (it should correspond to the global warming potential GWP), we get 16,7 and that is lesser as GWP of methane for period of 100 years. Already from descriptions of numerous catastrophic pollutions in the regions of oil fields we have seen that the situations are similar all over the world. We can infer that everywhere much more hidden emissions exist as from the burning gas seen the most. First of all we have to be worried about methane, which is from all earth gas components easier of the air. It raises in the atmosphere and causes long term 20 time larger greenhouse effect as the CO2 does. But in shorter periods up to 20 years this effect is 72 fold (A.E.10). First of all we have to be worried also because the methane has already encountered in the vicious cycle of global warming, where the increasing temperatures melt the frozen Earth's surfaces and release the caught and stored methane beneath. Released

69

methane again increases the greenhouse effect and temperatures. The other human big methane sources are coal mines, landfills, cleaning plants and agriculture. Therefore at fast worsening of climate circumstances and better knowledge about methane effect to the greenhouse, we must consider its short term effect, when it has not yet degraded. For calculation on the global level the meaningfully equal data interest us, as published for Russia. But as a whole only the world gas burning is known, yet still changing from source to source. We will take some middle value 143 bcm/year. Because Russia is big and enough heterogeneous producer of oil and gas it is possible that the average values of all their different situations are enough close to the world average values. Therefore at the calculation of missing global values I will use the Russian proportions of particular data pairs upon the known global data, too. The calculation is not difficult, only a little logically complex, because of different data in volumetric, mass and equivalent units, what demands among them the appropriate conversions. Also because of complicated names and meanings of single data, only the descriptive explanation of calculations becomes pretty incomprehensible. Therefore I used a table form of calculation and for particular data I defined their names in form of logical acronyms: Acronym composition: R = Russia, W = World, CH4 = methane, CO2 = carbon dioxide, EQ = Equivalent, BU = Burned, CM = Compressor, SU = Sum; RCH4 RCO2EQ

- Russian emissions (leaking) methane from compressors, pipelines and distribution - Russian equivalent of CH4 emissions in quantity of CO2

RCH4BU RCO2BU RCH4CM RCO2CM

- Russian burning gas - Russian actual emission of CO2 from burning gas - Russian gas consumption in compressors - Russian actual emission of CO2 from compressors

RCH4SU

= RCH4 + RCH4BU + RCH4CM = Russian sum of methane emissions and burnt and consumed quantities of the gas = RCO2EQ + RCO2BU + RCO2CM = Russian equivalent of methane emissions and actual emission of CO2

RCO2SU

WCH4

- World emissions (leaking) methane from compressors, pipelines and distribution

70

WCO2EQ

- World equivalent of CH4 emissions in quantity of CO2

WCH4BU WCO2BU WCH4CM WCO2CM

- World burning gas - World actual emission of CO2 from burning gas - World gas consumption in compressors - World actual emission of CO2 from compressors

WCH4SU

= WCH4 + RCH4BU + RCH4CM = World sum of methane emissions and burnt and consumed quantities of the gas = WCO2EQ + WCO2BU + WCO2CM = World equivalent of methane emissions and actual emission of CO2

WCO2SU

From Russian burning gas consumption (RCH4BU) and its actual emission of CO2 (RCO2BU) we calculated their proportion and used the same proportion for calculation of CO2 emission of the entire world burning gas (WCO2BU) from the known quantity of the world burning gas (WCH4BU). The second is proportion of Russian methane emission equivalent and actual CO2 emission from burning gas (RCO2EQ / RCO2BU = 17,3). The same proportion should deal between equitable world categories and over it we calculate the CO2 equivalent of the world methane emissions (WCO2EQ). With opposite consideration of methane greenhouse effect we get the mass and volume of the world methane emissions (WCH4). Table E.10 shows the calculation of world common methane emission from oil and gas transport. The blue values are the known data and the bold values are the results. The upper part of the table shows the calculation of the entire world emission (leaking) of methane and its equivalent greenhouse effect in quantity of CO2. The second part represents the calculation of missing world gas consumption in compressors and the common "disappearing" of methane between the pumping out and consumption of fossil fuels. The conversion factor between emission, respectively consumption and mass is 0,9 kg/m3. Bcm = billion cubic meters. For calculation of compressor consumption the Russian proportions cannot be used in the same way, because for this world consumption no value is available, neither in absolute gas or methane consumption nor in the emission of CO2. But this value (WCO2CM) is included in the common sum (WCO2SU), which can be calculated for Russia, too (RCO2SU). The Russian proportion of this common sum and burning gas we use for calculation of common world sum.

71

Table E.10

72

This is in both cases composed of the equivalent effect of methane and actual emissions of CO2. From the common sum we subtract former calculated effect of emitted methane and actual emission CO2 from burning gas and we get the emission CO2 from the compressors. The quantity of consumed gas in compressors (WCH4CM) we get again from Russian proportion between this consumption and its emissions (2,22). The common disappearing of methane and gas is necessary to separate again as already before calculated emissions of CH4 and sum of CH4 consumption at burning and in compressors. Natural gas consumpt. at transport

Consumption gas (orig. enote, *1012 kg)

Burning oil gas Gas in compressors

143 bcm 0,129 408 bcm 0,367

Produced energy (*1012 kWh)

Percent of human energy (%)

Emission factor CO2, water (kg/kWh)

Common emission CO2, water (*1012 kg)

1,75

1,25

0,23 0,13

0,41 0,23

5,39

3,85

0,23 0,13

1,24 0,70

Table E.12.1 The world hidden consumption (burning and combustion) of the natural gas at transport through oil and gas pipelines. (Bcm = billion cubic meters = 109 m3) Methane emissions at transport

Emissions CH4 (orig. enote, *1012 kg)

Energy value (*1012 kWh)

Percent of human energy (%)

Equivalent CO2 – *72 (*1012 kg)

Oxidation in CO2, water (*1012 kg)

Russian emissions Global emissions Emissions + consumpt. CH4

11,5 bcm 0,0104 110 bcm 0,0986

0,153

0,1

0,747

0,0286

1,449

1,0

7,097

0,3333

8,59 (sum) 8,75

6,1 6,2

8,75 (sum)**

661 bcm 0,595

Table E.12.2 World methane emissions (leaking) and common consumption at transport through oil and gas pipelines. ** The common equivalent represents sum of leaking methane equivalent and actual emission of CO2 from the gas consumption.

73

HOW MUCH TIME YET? Many articles, discussions and studies about influences of particular factors to the greenhouse effect of the Earth's atmosphere have been published. The comparisons depend of course on author's advocating or opposing to a given factor. But in my own searching I didn't find a publication which would try to join all known influences in one place. But only such overview can give us the answers, what is really dangerous to the future of the Earth and what are only the consequences of other activities. Therefore the natural fires in Siberian forests contribute most of all (2/3) to the entire deforestation. At least 10 times more wood as in Canada and US together burns there and more than 3 times of the entire deforestation of tropical forests. This is really dangerous happening, because the man is not many times a direct inducer, but he is not capable to control it. It happens in rarely populated regions. The natural mechanisms began to stimulate each other in their contribution to the expansion of forest fires and to the "fire" in atmosphere, too. The fires in taiga are not only consequence, but only one additional factor, which accelerates warming of Arctic regions with CO2 emissions, blocking light and releasing the heat. The emissions from that fires represent 15 % of CO2 emissions from all fossil fuels. In the Table E.5 the natural methane emissions mean leaking from marshes and lakes, wood fires, excretes of wild animals, termites. The human activities producing methane are burning fossil fuels, bio mass and forests, stock breeding, rice fields, landfills and burning waste. IPCC takes care only to these already long known emissions. To the releasing of methane from permafrost on the land and from methane hydrates in seas it looks as a necessary evil, when people already talk and write so much about that. In the report AR5 (2011) IPCC lists annually only 6 Tg of methane from hydrates, what is 15 times less as leaking methane from pipelines. The report briefly mentions the measurements of Russian researchers, when the catastrophic values have not been known. But in the report on climate changes from 2014 they just completely ignore the Russian discoveries. The report contains presentations of four possible scenarios of development greenhouse gas emissions, but any explanation of reasons and consequences for each. The worst scenario includes increasing emissions with today's speed. The report contains in every step the words like "possible" or "trust". Any of the connected claims is based on the transparent and understandable data. Obviously the report is intended even to mislead the politics that on any level the necessary changes would not be started. And there is no word on beginnings of escaping big methane quantities and even not on the danger that this can happen.

74

Today (2016) the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels amount 33*1012 kg/year and with deforestation and globally cut wood for energy (7,45*1012 kg/year) and gas consumption for transport through pipelines (1,65*1012 kg/year) together 41*1012 kg/year. Already today from IPCC recognized and uncontested methane emissions from natural sources and human activities in the CO2 equivalent of greenhouse effect "value" 48,7*1012 kg CO2 yearly, what is 16 % more than emissions of actual CO2. Just no one compares in this way. To mention how much bigger the methane's effect is, has no sense if we don't apply it on real numbers. We see the increasing methane's effect in atmosphere in "only" 8 times larger absolute effect of CO2 (because of much larger common CO2 quantities in atmosphere). But it is more concerning that the annual effect of methane has already exceeded CO2… How much time we will still guilt CO2? Until the methane will not be at least as guilty as CO2? The next equation solves the question – when? On the left side we wrote the annual increasing of total CO2 in the atmosphere and on the right side the annual increasing the CO2 equivalent of the methane. At continuation of today's official state (3.000 Gton CO2 in 5 Gton methane), the "N" is unknown number of years, when the effects become equal. 3000 + N*42 = 5*72 + N*49 The calculation gives us N = 399 years. Therefore if we considered only today's official IPCC data and illusorily expected the same and minimal methane release in the future, it would last 400 years that the absolute effects of both gases equalize. Well, we have plenty of time. But what is happening meanwhile? With annually increasing quantities of both gases 20.000 Gton of CO2 and 278 Gton of methane will be in the atmosphere in that time. We will "live" in somehow similar atmosphere as we know on the Venus.

Foreseeing of the methane greenhouse effect in next years What do we know at least doubtlessly is that 6.400 km2 big area of Russian measurements releases 7 Mton of methane annually. The added effect (times 72) is equivalent of 0,5 Gton CO2. If we expand such emission to the entire coastal East Siberian seas, as we already calculated 0,66 Gton of methane annually, this equivalent effect would be 47 Gton of CO2. This is additionally the same effect, as the officially recognized emissions cause already in this moment. The same equation looks like: 3000 + N*42 = 5*72 + N*(49 + 47)

75

It gives us the levelling in N = 49 years. Despite much larger and faster methane releasing the circumstances in the atmosphere in that time will be much better: 5.000 Gton CO2 and 70 Gton of methane. Interesting – more difficult as today's the circumstances and worse as the predictions are, faster will the humanity recognize its delusion. Let's try to foresee still more reliably: 1. The published entire quantity of released methane in test area of Russian scientists is said to be minimal. Minimal is therefore also the average quantity on this area 3 ton/km2. The real values can be only higher. How much is maximal possible? Two times higher, therefore 6 ton/km2? Let's take this value. And the middle value, with which we will calculate forward, is then 4,5 ton/km2 per day. 2. The waters of coastal area of East Siberian Sea are warmer for 2 to 4 deg.C above the historical equilibrium. But the water in the tested area itself was only for 1 to 1,5 degrees warmer, because of near outflow of river Lena into the sea. Releasing methane in the entire coastal region can be therefore also two times larger as escaping from test area – with the middle value of 9 ton/km2 in one day. 3. The coastal warmed area of East Siberian Sea is approximately of the same size as similar warmed sea above the central and western Siberia and European part of Russia. And we have one more similar region above northern coast of Alaska and Canada. Therefore we can calculate with commonly dangerous surface for such methane emissions of 3 x 600.000 km2, or approximately 2 million km2. The common methane emission from so large surface would be annually: 9 ton/km2 * 2*106 km2 * 365 = 6570*106 ton = 6,57 Gton CH4 That is in one year more than the current official quantity of methane in the atmosphere. And multiplied with its greenhouse effect for 20 years, this represents the equivalent of 473 Gton of CO2. The time, when the greenhouse effects of the CO2 and methane will be equal is now: 3000 + N*42 = 5*72 + N*(473 + 49);

N = 2640 / 522 = 5,06 years.

Once again the circumstances in the atmosphere after 5 years: 3.210 Gton CO2 in 38 Gton methane. The common effect will be already more than two times larger as today's. The influence to the Earth' surface temperature increase, to further increasing of methane emissions, to quantity of water in atmosphere, to decay of the life and reduction of oxygen production we have already described

76

in the part The escape of climate changes of this appendix. Here we actually only calculated, when this will happen… Do we risk ?? First of all WE MUST SEE already in this moment that it is necessary to make similar measurements IMMEDIATELY in many more points and areas of the entire warmed part of Arctic ocean. The results could be then more reliable expanded to the entire region. IT IS URGENT TO FORESEE THE CONSEQUENCES of this started happening, even today they seem a little exaggerated. But this (if they seem exaggerated) we don't know very well. And we don't know very well also the opposite. Therefore maybe the consequences do not seem exaggerated at all, but they are even very UNDERESTIMATED. It depends on that, who observes and with what aim…

Questionable low estimations for the entire East Siberian seas When in 2014 the results of measurements in Laptev Sea were published, in media appeared also an estimation of Shakhova that the entire (water surface of) East Siberian Shelf should emit 17 Tg (17 Mton) of methane annually. The value was changed from 8 Mton from year 2010. For further estimations then many were using the entire spectrum between both values. If we considered for this "entire region" only the estimated 600.000 km2 of coastal East Siberian seas, this annually emitted quantity means daily flux of 77 mg/m2. It is 40 times less from the averagely measured flux in test area of Laptev Sea. Can we believe this? If on the other side we suppose that in almost 100 times larger entire region had to exist similar areas as in the test area, their surface can be only 1,5 times larger from test area to give together these 17 Mton. To believe? According to the similar geological structure and similar warming certainly not. If such estimation leaked in the public, this low value certainly could not be given because the situation in other parts of ESAS wouldn't be known. And if we considered the same structure and warming of 33.000 km2 large rectangle, in which the 5 time smaller test area resides, it would have to release 36 Mton of methane annually. The given estimation for 20 times larger region is then 2 times smaller. To believe? Of course not. Such estimation had to be given because of some pressures that at the similar usage of measured results (as I used) the public wouldn't fall in too big panic... From the article (A.E.29) it would be possible to infer that the calculated daily emission 19.400 ton is valid for the entire water column of rectangle P1, what would give quite lower average of 0,6 ton/km2. But the accurate reading of data in the appendix of that article (A.E.29.2) removed this doubt and showed that this is exactly and only the flux of all summed seeps and that it holds for

77

reviewed area of 6.400 km2. The average of this area 3 ton/km2 daily therefore holds also for the entire similar rectangle P1. And the average in the common cross-section of all seeps is 135 ton/km2. But this is flux from the sea bottom in the water and not the flux in the atmosphere. In the summer time of 2011 to 2013 the Russians have measured in Laptev Sea in test area P1 also the concentrations of the methane dissolved in water – maximally 154 nanomoles in 1 litre and average 17 nmol/l (A.E.65). The maximum means 2,5*10-6 g/kg. The solubility of methane in summer time is slightly lower as in the winter, approximately 32 mg/kg. We see that at this measured concentration in the water could be dissolved at least 10.000 times more methane. But in the next part described measurements of all methane in water, including the accidentally captured bubbles, exceeded the methane solubility for 3 times. Therefore the methane in water exists, only not dissolved to the level of molecules, as it could be. What is happening?

The confirmations – SWERUS C3 One year after the measurements in Laptev Sea the (probably concerned) international scientific community organized a three month Arctic expedition SWERUS C3. One of the goals with inclusion of the Russian team were also the measurements of methane emissions from East Siberian seas. During the expedition no qualitative information were available, not in the official reports, too. Later published article Methane fluxes from the sea to the atmosphere across the Siberian shelf seas (A.E.66) confirms that the measurements have been planned only as the concentrations of methane in water and they didn't take care for acquisition or avoidance of eventual bubbles in the water. The bubble fluxes have been considered as short local occurrences in the time when the ice melts… Without explanation they published extraordinary high concentrations of methane in water and very low values of methane fluxes in the air 3 to 4 mg/m2 daily. They don't mention the maximal fluxes. This information blockade and hunger at knowing values of previous Russian research led to the speculations and false representation of known data. For example, the Russia & India Report (A.E.67) wrote about emissions of several hundred grams of methane (per m2, daily) and about 700 "methane holes" with diameters up to 1 kilometer… After careful examination in direct expedition documents and later scientific articles we cannot find such claims. The author has mixed with the data of previous Russian measurements and added something of her own… Sadly such claims expanded to some other websites

78

and because they are appropriate for predictions, I tried to use them at the beginning, too. But we can find equatable data also from other more serious publications. The article of the Russian team on the SWERUS Recent geological – geomorphological processes on the east Arctic shelf on the website (A.E.68) states more than 200 areas with rich methane emissions, assigned as single or group gas torches, or larger bottom areas, completely covered with strong gas seeps. The picture E.20.1shows 10 km wide area with equally seeded "weaker", although probably some 10 meter wide seeps. In the width of 1 km they could give together approximately 10 % of entire picture coverage. We don't see the condensed eruptions. A layer of very condensed gas accumulates under the sea surface (ice?). On the picture E.20.2 we see about 2 km wide belt of single and group gas torches with diameters of several 100 meters. It seems that the strong flux breaks the ice sooner, because above the torches we don't see any such gas layer as aside. The parallel at 80 degrees latitude which is the closest to the planned expedition path is 6.980 km long. From Norway to Alaska is half of this circle. But in both directions they drove much left-right, too and the entire journey was approximately 13.000 km long, from this 7.000 km in East Siberian seas. If we take that they discovered big methane eruptions with sonar in the ship course, 5 km on each side, those 200 eruptions appeared on the surface of 70.000 km2. With average diameter 1 km their common surface amounts approximately 160 km2, respectively 0,23 % of the examined area. If we expand the same density of their appearance to the entire East Siberian seas (2,1 million km2), we get the common surface of intensive methane escaping of 2,1*106 km2 * 0,0023 = 4.800 km2. Because the calculated fluxes of methane in the atmosphere from the SWERUS expedition are obviously false, let's take them from previous Russian research. We will consider averagely in the seeps 100 g/m2, what is 25 % less as calculated in their report (A.E.29.2). We get annual quantity of 175 Mton of methane from big eruptions. From Picture E.20.1 with no big eruptions we could estimate the common surface of existing seeps in 1 kilometer to approximately 10 % of this space. I zoomed this part of the picture and at the width of 90 mm on the screen measured the common width of 5 strongest seeps 11 mm. If we got the similar picture from a side too, the cross-section of all seeps would represent 1 % in 1 km2 big square. From this percent we see that the common surface of equal methane emissions in the entire region of East Siberian seas is 21.000 km2 and the annual quantity of emitted methane 770 Mton. Together with the eruptions

79

in all East Siberian seas (including Laptev Sea) 0,945 Gton of methane escapes in the atmosphere annually. All three big regions of the Arctic ocean would give us approximately half of our previous expansion. The size of this estimation therefore stays confirmed.

Picture E.20.1 Equally escaping methane on a larger area

Picture E.20.2 Kilometers wide condensed methane torches Really in previous Russian observations the flux measurements have been divided in three average values with the highest 176 g/m2 and the average of all seeps 135 g/m2. According to the general estimations that escaping methane has increased "significantly", we could also move the middle value higher, to 200 g/m2 and come with common annual emission very close to our first estimation

80

(6,67 Gton). Therefore we came to the equal results with two different calculations. Supersaturation The article with measurements 154 and 17 nmol/l (A.E.65) includes also the statement that the water on the surface was supersaturated with methane, comparing with the atmosphere, dependent on the region, from 500 % up to 5.000 % (5 to 50 times). For this very small concentration it is strange that it could represent the supersaturation, but let's try to find out, what hides behind this? Recalculation of an often northern methane concentration in the atmosphere (over) 2.000 ppb means 1,1*10-3 g/kg, what is approximately 400 times more from the methane mass concentration in the water. Therefore the statement about supersaturation cannot hold. But if we look, how much volume takes the methane in both environments, we get: for water: 2,5*10-6 g/liter = 2,5*10-3 g/m3 for air: 1,1*10-3 g/kg = 1,1*10-3 g/0,75m3 = 1,47*10-3 g/m3 Actually in a volume of the water more methane can be found as in the same volume of the air, but not 50 times more, even not 10 times. If the supersaturation refers only to the larger volumetric concentration in the water, than yes… But the article doesn't mention the numerical values of measurements in the air. Therefore we don't know, to which value and to which units the 5.000 % supersaturation refers. But if they calculated the proportion, they had to know the right concentration in the air. Because of all these appeared questions I collected in the Table E.14 all known measured and in other units recalculated values of methane in water and air. Among the results I tried to find the stated proportion of supersaturation and consider at this the possible errors in use of units. Because the article talks only about the measurements in 2011 to 2013, the table includes for comparison also the measurements of SWERUS expedition from 2014. From all these numbers on one place we see that the factor 50 (underlined numbers) appears only between measurements of maximal concentration in the water at this second expedition. Because the article was published later, the authors have included in the results of their previous measurements also the SWERUS results. But these are incompatible with measurements of the previous years, neither to the measurement methods nor to the results.

81

METHANE IN WATER Methane SWERUS solubility Units Average Max ppm 36,0 5,80 103,0 mg/kg 5,00 91,6 32,0 g/l 10-3 *32,0 10-3 *5,00 10-3 *91,6 mol/l 10-3 * 2,0 10-3 *0,31 10-3 * 5,7

Shakhova/ Possible error Similetov in units nmol umol mmol -3 3 10 * 2,9 2,9 10 * 2,9 10-3 * 2,5 2,5 103 * 2,5 -6 -3 10 * 2,5 10 * 2,5 2,5 10-9 *154,0 10-6 *154,0 10-3 *154,0

Table E.14.1 Methane in water METHANE IN AIR Earth Units ppm mg/kg g/l mol/l

Average 1,8

SWERUS

Average 1,88

Max 1,94 1,07 10-6 * 1,45 10-9*90,60

Shakhova/ Similetov nmol/50 10-3 * 65,0 10-3 * 35,6 10-9 * 48,0 10-9 * 3,0

Arctic Reference 2,0 1,1 10-6 * 1,5 10-9 * 93,0

Table E.14.2 Methane in air The known measurements of methane in Arctic seas. The original measured values are bold. Because of transparency the potential factors are written ahead the values and the decimal zeroes added if necessary. The column Shakhova/ Similetov in second table represents only the 50 times lowered possible concentrations in the air. Note that 1litre of air has mass of only 1,35 grams. The table E.15 gives together the overview and comparison of measured, estimated and calculated methane fluxes from sea bottom through the water column in the atmosphere. Two expeditions and 1.000 fold differences in results are not very promising. At already described questionable method of measuring concentrations together with bubbles, the SWERUS measurements tell us only one – the Laptev and East Siberian seas behave equally, so our predictions and expansions have been legitimate. According to the Russian researchers the concentration 2,5*106 g/l in test area down to depth of 20 m (volume of 128*1012 litres) represents together 320 ton of methane. If the entire summed flux 19.400 ton/day dissolved in the water, this concentration would be reached in short 24 minutes. Also if we assume the same concentration down to 100 meters, this time extends only to 2 hours. Therefore the quantity of dissolved methane is negligible small comparing with the entire annual (many

82

years) flux. Our upper assumption that in the summer time 10 % of the emitted gas from sea bottom doesn't reach the atmosphere due dissolving in water, seems false. We can neglect the dissolution of methane and consider that all from the sea bottom escaping methane goes in the air beside minimally dissolved quantity. That matches also with discovery of Russian researchers that the bubbles represent the main mechanism of methane transport from hydrates in the atmosphere. DAILY METHANE FLUXES SWERUS (2014) (water - air) LS+ESS LS

g/m2day ton/day

Shakhova / Similetov (2011 – 2013) (bottom - water) LS – cross section LS – test area of all seeps 150 km2 6.400 km2 Average Average Large Middle Small Average Together seeps seeps seeps 10-3 * 3,8 10-3 * 3,9 176,0 88,0 30,8 3,0 14.220,0 5.060,0 80,0 19.400,0

Table E.15 Measurements, calculations and estimations of methane fluxes through the waters of Arctic seas. LS = Laptev Sea, ESS = East Siberian Sea. Therefore we can lower the starting estimated quantity of possible methane emissions in ESAS only for the estimated winter delay. Twenty percent of the entire methane emission can stop under the ice. This gas has more (enough) time available to dissolve entirely in the water. Barents and Kara Sea have commonly only 6 % coverage with ice, but from there we don't have any known measurements. Therefore we will consider this 20 % lowered methane influx into atmosphere in all three big Arctic coastal marine regions. The minimum time of doubling today's greenhouse effect is then for 20 % longer, from 5 to 6 years. And we get the upper (the most advantageous) margin of 18 years, if instead estimation of increased methane emissions in warmer seas we take only 3 times smaller minimally measured methane flux in all three regions.

83

Last measurements in Laptev sea in October 2016 and legitimacy of foreseeing At the end of September and in October 2016, the team of Dr. Igor Semiletov on the research vessel of Tomsk Polytechnical University repeated the observation and measurements from years 2011 to 2013 and partially from the expedition SWERUS, too. Already after few working days they reported: the distribution area of the methane releases has significantly increased compared to the data collected in 2011 to 2014… More information hasn't leaked out till today (21st November 2016), when the Arctic Forum of researchers started in Tomsk. In Spring 2017 appeared information about new discoveries of methane emissions, as we have already calculated them in our prediction according to Russian measurements in years 2011 to 2013. Realization of these predictions today means that already approximately 1 Gton of methane escapes from the Arctic. This is quantitatively 30 times less as CO2 from fossil fuels, but already with 5 times larger effect. We can calculate this also from very frequently repeating measurements of Arctic methane concentrations of approximately 2.700 ppb (parts per billion). This means increasing for 50 % above the average concentrations in Earth's atmosphere, respectively almost 1.000 parts higher of the "normal". The volume of atmosphere above the Arctic up to altitude of 15 km is approximately 0,3 billion km3. In this volume takes the over-concentrated methane 1 millionth part of the space, respectively 300 km3 of clear gas at the same pressure. If the average density of the air in this volume is 0,5 kg/m3, the average density of methane is 0,28 kg/m3 (molecular masses 16 against 29). From this we get the entire exceeding methane mass above Arctic of approximately 85 Mton. In the time of entire year this mass slowly spreads in the rest Earth's atmosphere and the newly released methane is constantly replacing the spreading gas. From the current mass we can estimate that in the entire year escapes few times (10 times) more methane, therefore already 0,5 to 1 Gton. In Spring 2017 a new scientific article (A.E.76) was published in Nature Communications Journal, which shows the discoveries from the expedition 2016. In the contrary of previous claims, the found mechanisms of subsea permafrost destabilization have shown new understanding of increased emissions from the largest world methane stocks, which exist in East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

84

In an interview Shakhova and Semiletov estimated that increased emissions occupy already 10 % of East Siberian Sea, 200.000 km2. These regions are "hotspots", where the observed methane emissions are far higher as in the "background areas". They observed the methane emissions of the largest flows of 3 kg/m2 daily and this is 15 times larger value as measured till now (A.E.77.A in B). Because in the article of both authors from year 2014 all measured and averaged values were declared as minimal, we tried to estimate some mean average values 4,5 g/m2 and because of warmer seas 9 g/m2. With these average value we calculated we calculated emissions for the entire surface of Arctic seas. The shallow sea in ESAS has been thought as 600.000 km2 large. But Shakhova speaks even about the potential dangerous surface of 2 million km2 only in this part of Arctic. 3 kg/m2 is probably the value near maximal noticed emission. This value, respectively a group of some lower values holds only for hotspots. But all hotspots certainly don't emit such quantities. We shall reduce this highest value to some lower and more real value for so big surface, maybe 1 kg/m2. This is still 5 times more from first measured maximal fluxes in Laptev Sea. Once again, this holds for the eruptions in hotspots, which can have individual surfaces up to some (10) km2, and not for the entire surface of sea floor, where these hotspots appear accidentally all around. According to the information of international expedition SWERUS (2014) we estimated the coverage of sea surface with large methane seeps, which they were able to see from the ship with the sonar, and we calculated 0,23 %. With expanding this percent to the entire ESAS and considering pictures of lower emissions (averages fluxes of seeps 100 g/m2), we came to the escaped quantity of approximately 1 Gton. On the entire Arctic and considering the upper value of seep emissions 200 g/m2 then the sum of 6 Gton appeared, what was in accordance with prediction on the base of measurements from years 2011 to 2013. But Shakhova and Semiletov estimated that the hotspots include 10 % of the entire ESAS surface, 200.000 km2. And if we calculate on this surface at the estimated smaller quantities 1 kg/m2 the daily and annually emissions, we get: 200.000 km2 * 106 m2/km2 * 1 kg/m2 = 2*1011 kg = 2*108 ton daily. Annually that means 700*108 ton = 70 Gton. This is almost unbelievable number. This is today 14 times more in one year, as it is (it should be) the entire methane quantity in the atmosphere (5 Gton). Where can be an error in estimation? The maximum quantity of emission 3 kg/m2, which was for this calculation still reduced, probably cannot hold for all

85

hot spots. Let stay at before years measured real 200 g/m2. This gives on the surface of hotspots 5 times smaller annual quantity – 14 Gton. This is approximately twice of the quantity, which in our predictions gave the equal greenhouse effects of CO2 and methane in just 2 years (methane GWP = 150 and 6,57 Gton annually in all Arctic seas). And here this quantity is appearing in just one third of all Arctic seas. Therefore the common emissions could be 6 time larger from our first prediction. Shakhova accents the combined effect of natural and anthropogenic warming. The essential moment of declining permafrost should be the duration of warming, what induces the thoughts that the natural warming prevails. In the last interglacial Eemian age the methane didn't escape because the warming time was too short, even the temperatures were higher from today's. From linear picture of geological planet temperatures, calculated from Antarctic ice cores, we don't see that in this age (130.000 years ago) the warming would be shorter as today, but certainly not only 2.000 years. The temperatures oscillated approximately the same time at 2 degrees Celsius higher level from today's 10.000 years long warming. From the planet temperature picture we don't see any reason for claims that the natural warming could cause such permafrost melting as we are seeing in last 20 years. Therefore absolutely, what we have already claimed at our first calculations of future methane emissions: the predictions are legitimate because on their base we see, how urgent the immediate acting is. All these approximate calculations show, in what circumstances we move. We came even to the situation, where it is the same, if the emission values are 10 times smaller or 10 times larger.

Picture E.21 Earth's temperatures in time of glacial ages, calculated from Antarctic ice cores

86

The failures of official forecasts The Russian scientists explained other facts, which show that the climate model represented by IPCC is completely wrong (A.E.78). It doesn't consider the essential mechanism for increasing Earth's greenhouse effect - the emission of the Arctic methane. The climate model of IPCC estimates that to end of the 21st Century the decay of permafrost in East Siberian sea (ESAS) cannot exceed few meters. The formation of completely melted areas (taliks) would take centuries and even thousands of years. With this they avoid the urgent and difficult consideration of the possibility of massive methane release into the water column and in atmosphere because of methane hydrate decay and accompanying free gas emissions. IPCC considers the potential contribution of ESAS into the entire methane emissions as unimportant and advocates only human and till now known natural methane emissions in the common quantity of 670 Mton annually. In one of the tables in this appendix we have already warned to this ignorance of IPCC. The cores of drilled sediments during expedition 2016 confirm the speed of subsea permafrost decay in last 35 years from 13 to 18 cm annually in depth. In 10 years this means 1,5 m. The average before 1982 was 3 times smaller. This shows again to the exponential increasing of decay and the current melting is probably still (much) larger.

Picture E.22 Lifting of upper gas limit in sea floor of East Siberian Arctic Shelf (a = 2012, b = 2011)

87

The acoustic record of picture E.22 (A.E.78) shows changing of upper limit of free gas in the sea floor. The gas, which is shown colourlessly as acoustic uncertainty in the sediment, has raised in some areas in one year for 7 to 10 meters. This shows to the permafrost decay from the lower side, to which presses the free gas, and to the essentially faster disappearing of hard shield, as caused only by melting from the top side because of too large influx of energy… Penetration of energy in depth and warming lower permafrost layers, which still don't fail, can create conditions where the energy of free gas starts to gnaw through the ice in the sediment… Deep taliks, the permafrost regions with too high temperature for existence, can expand too... The studies from years 2011 to 2016 have shown that in some ESAS regions the upper level of subsea permafrost already reached the depth of the methane hydrates stability. The sediment material stays (the floor is not sinking), but its frozen structure disappears and somewhere it has already disappeared down to hydrates and free gas. This is the decay, which will and already causes the massive eruptions of methane bubbles. The methane concentrations in the lowest layers of Arctic atmosphere are exceeding two- up to fourfold the average concentrations in the entire atmosphere (1.800 ppb) – this means from 3.500 to 7.000 ppb. Therefore the concentrations in wider regions and to the altitudes of 6.000 meters (where they usually make measurements) over 2.500 ppb are quite "normal" and show to the emission of about 1 Gton of methane annually in the entire ESAS. This is only from this source 1/3 more, as from all sources recognized by IPCC. The essential difference is that the "official" methane sources stay relatively constant, but the emissions from ESAS increase frightfully fast. But if we consider the estimations of Dr Shakhova in the translated interview (A.E.77.B), the annual quantities can be already today much larger.

The conclusion At this point we will stop estimating the energy flows of the planet and mechanisms for their acceleration or impeding. The essential discovery is that today's temperature conditions on the Earth change much faster and with larger intensity as whenever in its history of recent some million years. In the text of this appendix few time the questions appeared, how much has the man thrown these mechanisms off the equilibrium and how these changes will influence back to our life and to the entire nature of the planet. We shall conclude, how much is (was) really the contribution of natural warming and how much the

88

anthropogenic. Because only on the base of this proportion we will see, if the humanity can sill do something to redirect these changes or at least appease them near today's situation. The entire book offers solutions for the human, how to live in the future that the nature will be essentially less endangered. Also in this critical moment, when maybe we can still hold the decay of the life on the Earth because of extreme increasing of the atmosphere greenhouse effect, the humanity doesn't have any other tool for this attempt as the complete cessation with material and energetic pollution of the planet. Some 10 or even 100 years is very little, comparing with 10.000 years, when today the melting would have to begin naturally. Therefore these few 10 years of so intensive melting could easily begin at least some decades before, or wait 100 years, if it really would not depend on the human contribution. Why did then this catastrophic melting ice appear exactly "in the moment", when the human exploitation of fossil energy, robbing nature and polluting the planet are the largest in the entire history? From all this we can conclude that to the planet warming, melting ice and permafrost and increasing Earth's greenhouse effect the essential contribution represents the human part, the anthropogenic warming. Therefore also the cessation of this human contribution will mean a big step, comparing to that part, to which we don't have any influence. We must stop the warmth influx from fossil and nuclear fuels, from increased pumping of geothermal energy and consequent emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Simultaneous we must make the complete redirection to the exploitation of solar energy. With this we will not cause any additional warming and greenhouse gases. Then we can hope that the cessation of our warmth and gas pollution will mean among all factors of increasing greenhouse the sufficient decrease that the permafrost melting will appease and the quantities of escaping methane will stabilize on some still bearable level of raised planet temperatures. But the Earth doesn't give us any promises that this will succeed…

Methane geoengineering In this book we didn't touch the human activities, which intentionally and "effectively" influence to the global masses of the planet. Originally discovered, patented and developed technologies of interventions in the atmosphere, seas and land vegetation are results of "despair" upon state of the planet and attempts for technical solutions of particular problems. But all of them

89

unconnected and not systematically and scientifically governed lead together in the additional warming of the planet. As all other inventions in capitalism they found the ways in the entirely private usage with intentions to profit and destroy the competitors. The politics and military forces only support such abuses. Only some of these geoengineering measures are the following: •

•

• •

Spraying of the atmosphere with different chemicals and particles, which should increase the albedo of the planet for sun light and contribute to its cooling or at least to its slower warming, has actually the opposite effect. It was abused for weather modifications in service of military operations, politic pressures and industrial agriculture. Fertilization of oceans with artificial fertilizers and iron nano particles for acceleration of plankton growth and consequent larger consumption of CO2 from the atmosphere and for larger production of oxygen. It doesn't consider the plant respiration, which is in the nature far the largest producer of CO2 and consumer of oxygen. Capture and storage of CO2 in the emptied oil and gas caverns, recently even exchange as the substitute for exploitation of gas hydrates. Electromagnetic ionization and warming of atmosphere with antenna stations of the system HAARP, originally for military increasing radar and communication ranges. But today anyone can buy their services for directing the cloudiness, causing storms and attacks with the thunderbolt strokes.

We find a good overview of all these planned methods and already evidently implemented projects on the website of ETC Group and in their publication Geopiracy (A.E.80). But more and more of these activities they try to deny and hide against the public. All these interventions have extremely negative consequences for the nature. The sprayed chemicals fall on the ground and poison the soil, waters and destroy forests. The plantations for CO2 reduction are genetically modified plants and using agriculture poisons they cause harmful influences to the nature. Among environmentalists and conscious people these activities already got a big negative sign, because all their consequences lead to the final effect of polluting, poisoning and warming planet. But in this moment and in the case of Arctic methane we could even accept certain geoengineering interventions, if the international control upon them would assure the non-profitability of usage, small influence to the life and prevent the military and economic abuse. Some years ago, when the situation still didn't seem so critical, the geologist and scientist Malcolm Light proposed

90

two methods for reducing emissions of Arctic methane. The proposals have been supported also by some other Arctic researchers, who publish many informations on the website Arctic News. Both methods are described in author's interviews and other publications (A.E.81 to A.E.84). The first proposal is drilling in the areas of hotspots and using this gas instead that from today's commercial wells and instead of the other fossil fuels. The effects of this usage would be decreasing the pressure in these reservoirs, decreasing permafrost decay from lower side and maybe even the help at its regeneration. The “production” of CO2 is in any case better as direct methane emissions in the atmosphere at unchanged usage of fossil fuels. But with this we don't move toward increased acquisition of solar energy. The quantities of emission and eventual capture are (in this moment) comparable with the production of commercial wells, but it is questionable if one well could suck the gas from an entire hotspot. Because of big surfaces of escaping more wells would be necessary. The permafrost will still decay with the same speed in regions without wells and with slower rates around wells… But a warning of Russian scientists to their oil industry exists that the floor of these seas is absolutely not convenient to place drilling platforms and building pipelines. The idea of methane destruction with electromagnetic and laser radiation, first of all of the dense methane clouds, which appear above the hotspots, was under the name Lucy the object of discussion some years ago. Some exact EM frequencies destroy the bonds in methane molecules. But the released carbon atoms don't oxidize in CO2 (like hydrogen into water). They join in microscopic diamond particles and we don't know their effect to the nature. The necessary frequencies would have to be generated similarly as with the HAARP system. The idea has been refused by many people because of its negative reputation, too. The second method for methane capture was developed by Chinese scientists and it is based on covering larger surfaces above hotspots with a special foam, which absorbs only the gas and not water (A.E.85). The technical solution includes also non-permeable upper layer and the pipes for removal of the caught gas. The problem of covering sea surface are numerous storms with high waves and breaking ice. So the foam would have to be submerged on the safe depth. The foam layer could also prevent penetration of the sun light to sea floor and protect the permafrost against melting.

91

Appendix F CALCULATION OF THE EGS WARMTH RESERVOIR RENEWING In this Appendix we will consider, in two cases and in two situations each, the renewing of energy and temperature in an exhausted warmth reservoir in the hot rock. The analysis of enhanced geothermal systems technology (EGS) is interesting, because we already feel the lack of aquifers. Therefore the interests of exploiting geothermal energy focus deeper and deeper into the areas of hot dry rock.

First case – first situation For the beginning let's try to get the feeling, what the exploiting of geothermal energy means at all. Let's take that our warmth reservoir is 1 km3 big cube somewhere in the middle of the Earth's 10 km thick crust, accessible through about 5 km deep boreholes. The temperature in the middle of the crust is normally approximately middle between surface temperature and 900 degrees C just under the crust (A.F.2), therefore 450 degrees. This situation corresponds more to thinner crust under oceans or to the presence of magma higher in the up to 30 km thick crust of the land. With exploiting we took from this rock reservoir around the borehole so much energy that it has cooled down to 100 degrees C. Our wish is that the warmth reservoir renews back to the original temperature. Let's first calculate, how much energy we took from the rock and therefore also how much of it must flow back to this area. The heat capacity of a material tells us, how much energy we must add to the unit of material, that it warms for 1 degree. For granite this value is CT = 0,8 J/(g*K), which we can recalculate because of the big mass into 0,22 kWh/(ton*K). This means that we need 0,22 kWh of warmth that we warm 1 ton of granite for 1 degree. The energy, which is contained in mass (m) of material at defined temperature (T), we calculate with formula E = CT * m * T, and the lost (exhausted) energy is the difference of energies at two temperatures, in our case at ΔT = 350K (difference of two temperatures is the same in Celsius and Kelvin scale): ΔE = CT * m * ΔT = 0,22kWh/(ton*K) * 3*109ton * 350K = 231*109kWh This is more than production of entire world's energy in two days.

92

The warmth energy travels through material because of transferring energy of moving material parts (molecule or atom oscillations) to the neighbour parts. The measure for this flow of the warmth is the thermal conductivity of material and for granite it is in average λT = 3,0 (W*m)/(m2*K). From this we can calculate the thermal resistance of the stone pillar under the reservoir with cross section of 1 km2, 5 km deep down to the bottom of Earth's crust (L). RT = L / (S * λT) = 5*103m / (106m2 * 3,0 (W*m)/(m2*K)) = 1,66*10-3 K/W This means that at the beginning of regeneration, at temperature difference ΔT = 900 – 100 degrees, will flow a warmth current (warmth power) of: PT = ΔT / RT = 800K / 1,66*10-3K/W = 482*103W, therefore around 500 kW through the entire cross section of 1 km2. At the beginning at the largest temperature difference also the highest warmth current flows. When the ΔT lowers because of warming reservoir, the warmth current lowers too. But also if all the time a such starting warmth current would flow, we needed: ΔE / PT = 231*109kWh / 500kW = 462*106 hours = 53 thousand years, to fill the reservoir with original quantity of contained energy.

First case – second situation In the second situation we will make the Earth's crust thinner only to 5 km and set our reservoir almost to its bottom, only 100 m above of already melting material of the Earth's mantle. Because of mantle nearness the normal temperature of the rock there is higher. In the middle of reservoir, which resides 600 m above the mantle, we estimate it, according to proportion of distances, to 800 degrees C. With exploiting we lowered it for the same difference as in first situation, therefore to 450 degrees. In this situation lowering of temperature to 100 degrees doesn't seem realistic because of energy source nearness. Today also the drilling technologies, which would stand so high temperatures, are still not available. But anyway, in the reservoir the same quantity of energy must reflow, only the bottom thermal resistance of granite is much smaller because of thinner pillar below: RT = L / (S * λT) = 100m / (106m2 * 3,0 (W*m)/(m2*K)) = 33,3*10-6 K/W.

93

And the warmth current is much larger: PT = ΔT / RT = (900-450)K / 33,3*10-6K/W = 13,5*106 W = 13,5*103 kW. In this case the simplified regeneration time is: ΔE / PT = 231*109kWh / 13,5*103kW = 17,1*106 hours, or still 1950 years. Both calculated times will be actually longer because of simultaneous lowering of temperature difference and warmth current into reservoir. An important role at this has especially at thicker crust in first situation the comparable thermal resistance of stone above the reservoir and the consequent energy current, which flows from the reservoir forward toward Earth's surface and slows down the filling of reservoir with energy. This case tells us that it is extremely important, how near to the borehole, respectively to the exploited warmth reservoir, we have a strong source of energy, which can quickly replace the pumped out energy. The important role plays also the big mass, of which we took the energy. On the other side the extremely long regeneration times tell us, how long the warmth has been accumulating in rock layers, how much time has been necessary for the nature that it created (for us?) these energy stocks. Let's compare also the material thermal capacitances. With its CT = 4,18 J/ (g*K), the water has far the largest capability of storing warmth. The same mass of aquifer at the same temperature stores about 5 times more energy as stone. From this viewpoint the EGS systems are essentially less effective. We must drill deeper, they cause more undesired effects and we get much less energy. But water has also about 5 time smaller thermal conductivity from granite. The same mass of exhausted aquifer will therefore regenerate to the original temperature much longer, because it must store more energy and because this energy flows through the water slower.

Second case – first situation Let’s try to imagine the second case more realistically. Data of real EGS power plants tell that usually the distance between production and injection borehole is in the range of few 100 metres. This means that the area, from which the energy is being pumped out, is smaller. Let’s take a granite cube with sides of 0,5 km, which has the mass of 375*106 tons. Because obviously from the energy source too distant reservoirs regenerate too slowly, let’s keep the reservoir’s former position 100 m above the Earth’s mantle and the same thermal conductivity of

94

granite. But the warmth penetrates into reservoir from larger area beneath, also from the side. Let’s take a conical warmth flow toward the reservoir with the average cross section of 2 km2. Because of much nearer source of heat we can also neglect the warmth current from reservoir toward the surface. It is also more realistic that we don’t lower the temperature of reservoir so much as in the first case, but only from 800 to 700 degrees C. The energy, which we took with this from the reservoir and must be renewed, is: ΔE = CT * m * ΔT = 0,22kWh/(ton*K) * 375*106ton * 100K = 8,25*109kWh In this case the thermal resistance below is RT = 16,7*10-6 K/W. The starting warmth current into reservoir at temperature 700 degrees C and difference of 200 K is PT = 12*103 kW (through cross section of 2 km2). At presumption that all the time the same warmth current will flow, we get the regeneration of the reservoir in only 78 years. The time can be more realistically calculated, if we consider lowering of warmth current in the range till the stable condition, respectively we take the current at middle temperature of 750 degrees. This temperature gives us the middle temperature difference of 900 – 750 = 150 K and current of 9,0*103 kW. From this we calculate the regeneration time of 105 years. The essential parameters, which contributed to lowering of regeneration time, are smaller mass of exhausted reservoir, stop pumping out already at smaller temperature change, which both contribute to smaller amount of produced energy. But also the influx of warmth into reservoir through larger cross section and not only through vertical pillar below the reservoir had a significant role. In this situation we could in the first usage pump out more energy, for example, down to temperature 500 degrees C, and then let it regenerate back only to 600 degrees. All next exploiting cycles would be performed only in the range from 500 to 600 degrees. With this we will achieve that the temperature difference during regeneration will be higher and the same quantity of energy will return faster. Essentially larger would be also the simultaneous partial regeneration during the exploitation time. At considering average warmth current at 550 degrees PT = 21*103 kW the exhausted energy would return in approximately 45 years.

95

Second case – second (today’s realistic) situation The starting stable temperature of the rock reservoir 600 degrees C in the drilling depth of 5000 m is a realistic situation for EGS power plants, which are being planned and designed today (A.F.3). The depth of the rock below the reservoir can be estimated with the presumption that at stable temperature the same warmth currents flow from the mantle into the reservoir (PM) and from the reservoir to the Earth’s surface (Ps). Let’s take that the energy outflow from the reservoir has the same cross section as the reservoir itself – therefore 0,25 km2. But also the inflow of energy comes through the same bottom cross section. On the same depths the same neighbour areas exist, which conduct the energy in the same way. In the horizontal direction the temperature differences and the warmth currents don’t exist. PM = ΔTM / RM in PS = ΔTS / RS ΔTM * SM * λT / LM = ΔTS* SS * λT / LS (900 – 600)K * 0,25*106m2 / LM = (600 - 0)K * 0,25*106m2 / 5000m The depth from reservoir to the mantle is therefore LM = 2500m. The proportion of depths is the same as the proportion of temperature differences. This is the same result as we have already predicted. With lowering temperature from 600 to 500 degrees C we took from the rock the same quantity of warmth as in the first situation. If we calculate in stable condition the depth of temperature 55 degrees, is this 2900 m above the mantle, respectively 400 m above the reservoir centre. This means that the entire cooled reservoir is surrounded by higher temperatures. In the starting regeneration phase, until he reservoir reaches enough high temperature, it won’t release any energy in any direction, but only accept it through its entire surface. With cooling the form of cooled area changes too. It is not a cube any more, as we have assumed before. The energy has been pumped from the point, where the production borehole ends, and there the rock is the coolest. The rock temperature then increases proportionally on all sides toward the warmer environment. Therefore the cooled area gets a form of sphere with very unclear borders. Now we can define the cooling more exactly – let’s take that the same mass of rock, as contained in former cube, is cooled to the average temperature of 500 degrees. The sphere has therefore the volume of 0,125 km3, the radius of 0,31 km and the surface of 1,21 km2. Therefore we can keep the estimation that the warmth current from the mantle toward the cooled area flows through an average 2 km2 big surface SM.

96

In this situation the simplified thermal resistance from mantle to the reservoir is: RM = LM / (SM * λT) = 2500m / (2*106m2 * 3,0 (W*m)/(m2*K)) = 416*10-6 K/W. And at the beginning the warmth current into reservoir: PM = ΔTM1 / RM = (900-500)K / 416*10-6K/W = 0,96*106 W = 960 kW At 525 degrees it reduces tom 900 and at 550 to 840 kW. Decreasing seems linear in dependence of the temperature difference, as all the time the middle warmth current 900 kW would flow. In this way we can calculate a simplified time, in which the reservoir regenerates to the half of lost energy. The quantity of energy, accepted or released by a material, is linearly proportional with change of its temperature. If the reservoir acquires half of lost temperature, then also half of its exhausted energy returned. And for that we need the time (ΔE/2) / PM = 4,125*109kWh / 900kW = 4,6*106 hours = 525 years. The thermal resistance toward the surface exists all the time and depends on the volume and form, for which we calculate the energy current. Till above the reservoir a higher temperature exists, we assume that from reservoir toward the surface no warmth current exists (PS = 0). But through this pillar above the reservoir the warmth flows anyway. This is the energy, which bypasses somehow the reservoir and enters into this pillar from side. When the temperature of reservoir exceeds the temperature of rock above, also the warmth current from the reservoir appears. Because the temperatures of surrounding rocks are similar, we assume that the warmth is being lost from the reservoir only through the pillar above, which has the same cross section as the reservoir itself and therefore the thermal resistance: RS = LS / (SS * λT) = 5000m / (0,25*106m2 * 3,0 (W*m)/(m2*K)) = 6700*10-6 K/W The time of regeneration can't be calculated so easily as in the first case, because also after enough changed temperature flows from the reservoir a significant warmth current: PS = ΔTS / RS = (550-0)K / 6700*10-6K/W = 82*103 W = 82 kW We can calculate now he warmth current from reservoir for different temperatures, until it reaches 600 degrees. We see that its nominal values are essentially lower from PM, but still enough high that it lowers the common

97

influx of warmth into reservoir. PS increases with the time, bur essentially less as PM decreases. For approximate calculation of the time to the entirely regenerated reservoir we can subtract its value in particular temperature points from next values of energy influx, as show the Table A.F.1 and graph on the Figure A.F.1. Temp (deg. PM Temp (deg. PM - PS C) (kW) PS (kW) C) (kW) 500 960 0 500 525 900 0 525 550 840 0 550 550 840 82 550 575 780 86 575 600 720 90 600

960 900 840 758 694 630

Table A.F.1 The values of warmth currents at regeneration of a real EGS warmth reservoir with considering constant thermal resistances

Figure A.F.1 Changing of warmth currents at regeneration of a real EGS warmth reservoir with considering constant thermal resistances The regeneration continues in the second part with consideration of the energy outflow toward the Earth’s surface. But we see that with such way of analysing at the full reservoir (at stable temperature 600 degrees) we don’t reach balanced energy flows in and out of the reservoir.

98

At the first calculation of crust thickness below the reservoir we considered the same horizontal temperatures and no warmth fluxes in this direction. In the stable condition the warmth flows toward the reservoir through a pillar with the same cross section. When the reservoir is cooled, the temperatures in the entire surrounding are higher, and the warmth penetrates into reservoir through its entire surface, also from the side and from the top. This side energy travels in lower, outer part of the pillar vertically, as in the stable situation. Because of increasing of the horizontal temperature differences toward the centre of cooled rock it begins to redirect into this point. Therefore all warmth, which fills the reservoir, comes from the mantle in wider area, which in the height of reservoir narrows and bends into its surface in a cone-like shape. When at regeneration of the reservoir the temperature increases, the temperature differences between it and (also side) surrounding decrease and less and less warmth penetrates into it from the top and from the side. This means that the cross section of warmth cone, for which we estimated the (starting) cross section of 2 km2, lowers and that at the fulfilled reservoir (to the temperature of 600 degrees) it reaches its minimum of 0,25 km2. The thermal resistance at this cross section is: RM = LM / (SM * λT) = 2500m / (0,25*106m2 * 3,0 (W*m)/(m2*K)) = 3330*10-6 K/W And the warmth current into reservoir falls to the same value as the current from he reservoir is: PM = ΔTM / RM = (900-600)K / 3330*10-6K/W = 0,09*106 W = 90 kW We estimate the intermediate values of cross section at intermediate temperatures and calculate the upper table and graph once again. Temp (deg.C) 500 525 550 550 575 600

SM (km2) RM (K/W) PM (kW) PS (kW) PM - PS (kW) 0,000416 67 960 0 960 2,00 0,000555 1,50 56 675 0 675 0,000833 1,00 33 420 0 420 0,000833 1,00 33 420 82 338 0,001322 0,63 75 246 86 160 90 90 0 0,25 0,003333

99

33 Table A.F.2 The values of warmth currents at regeneration of a real EGS warmth reservoir with considering of variable thermal resistances.

Figure A.F.2 Changing of warmth currents at regeneration of a real EGS warmth reservoir with considering variable thermal resistances. With consideration of variable cross section of warmth current into reservoir toward the stable condition we see that the current lowers essentially more as in the first calculation. If we consider in the time calculation of first part of regeneration (where there is still no energy outflow from reservoir) the middle current value at 525 degrees, we get till warming to 550 degrees the time: (ΔE/2) / PM(525deg) = 4,125*109kWh / 675kW = 6,1*106 hour = 698 years. For the second half of regenerated energy we must consider still smaller value of difference of both currents at 575 degrees. For this time we get therefore still much larger value: (ΔE/2) / PM(575deg) = 4,125*109kWh / 160kW = 25,8*106 hour = 2950 years.

100

Second case – the natural course For both situations in this case we will consider now the changing of temperature difference during regeneration of reservoir. Here exists a big similarity with electric circuit, where the capacitor with electric capacity C is charging with current through electric resistor R. The quantity (“force”), which in this case causes the electric current through resistor into capacitor, is the difference of voltage between voltage source (U0) and voltage on capacitor UC (it corresponds to the temperature difference). This voltage difference appears also as a voltage across the resistor and causes the current. When the electric current flows into capacitor, the voltage on the capacitor increases, as with the warmth current increases the temperature of the reservoir (a thermal capacitor). The voltage difference on the electrical resistance UR = U0 – UC lowers, as the temperature difference on thermal resistance of the granite layer lowers, too. With this lower the electric current into capacitor and the warmth current into reservoir. The voltage on the capacitor changes during the time according to a exponential curve from zero forward and nears asymptotically to the value of source voltage U0. The equation is: UC(t) = U0*(1 – e-(t/τ)), where the characteristic time constant is τ = R*C Asimilar equation we develop for changing of reservoir temperature, where the time constant is a product of thermal resistance, thermal capacity and mass of the material. τ = RT * CT * m, which gives also the right unit of a second. T(t) = T0*(1– e-(t/τ)) T0 is the marginal temperature, toward which nears the reservoir temperature. It is its stable temperature at given depth, but not the temperature of the heat source (Earth’s mantle) in this case. The equation holds true, if we can neglect the warmth current from the reservoir, as in the electrical case we neglect loses in the capacitor. We must calculate with Kelvin degrees and the temperature curve starts from absolute zero forward. For us the time difference on this curve is interesting, when at the starting reservoir temperature (T1) it begins to fill with energy, till the moment when the temperature reaches T2. The difference of these times on the curve, which match to both temperatures Δt = t2 – t1, represents the time, in which the reservoir regenerates. For calculation of Δt we must in both time moments find the logarithms of formula and subtract them:

101

T(t1) = T0*(1– e-(t1/τ)) => t1 = -ln((T0 –T(t1))/T0) * τ T(t2) = T0*(1– e-(t2/τ)) => t2 = -ln((T0 –T(t2))/T0) * τ First situation In the first situation is the starting temperature T1 = 500 deg. C (773 K) and the final T2 = 600 deg. C (873 K). The reservoir fills toward the stable temperature T0 = 800 deg. C (1073 K). In this situation the reservoir, after it reaches 600 degrees, still isn't regenerated entirely (this would be at stable temperature T 0). Between reservoir and surrounding still big temperature differences exist and the warmth flows in it still through big surface. Therefore the thermal resistance in this range doesn't lower much and also the time constant stays almost unchanged: τ = 16,7*10-6 K/W * 0,22 kWh/(ton*K) * 375*106ton = 1377*103 hours = 157years The interval of regeneration up to 600 deg. C in the first situation is: Δt = 157years * (ln(300/1073) – ln(200/1073)) = 64 years Second situation In the second situation we saw that the rock volume, through it the energy flows into reservoir, changes very much, when the temperature nears to the stable value. With this the thermal resistance of the actively conductive rock and consequently the time constant change, too. Actually all these parameters in natural way change continuously, without big momentary jumps, although we can observe them here only in few values. Because we estimated the middle cross section of warmth influx into reservoir and of its changes in dependence on temperature, this represents the largest error in our calculation. Much smaller error will appear, if we calculate the time of increasing temperature in the defined temperature interval with help of estimated middle cross section in this interval and of the consequent time constant. This means that we move inside this temperature interval along exponential curve, which is defined by this time constant. When the temperature raises over the upper limit of this temperature interval, the actual cross section of warmth current and the time constant change already so much that we must calculate the time of temperature change in next temperature interval according to the curve with other middle time constant. Table A.F.3 shows that we partitioned the entire temperature range, in which the reservoir regenerates back to the stable temperature, into four 25-degree

102

intervals ΔTA to ΔTD. We estimated the limiting and middle cross section values SM in particular intervals with approximately linear decreasing from estimated starting value at big temperature difference (2 km2) down to cross section of the reservoir itself in the stable condition (0,25 km2). For middle cross section values the thermal resistances and time constants have been calculated. The times t1 and t2 represent the moments, when on the exponential curve of temperature regeneration, defined by a calculated middle time constant, the temperature reaches the lower respectively the upper limit value of particular temperature interval. The time interval, which corresponds to the particular temperature interval, is the difference of these times Δt = t2 – t1. The starting time constant of the first temperature interval is: τ = 416*10-6 K/W * 0,22 kWh/(ton*K) * 375*106ton = 34320*103 hours = 3900 years, But in calculation we consider its middle value of 4485 years. The sum of all four time intervals gives the entire time of reservoir regeneration back to almost stable temperature (595 degrees) in duration of about 39.000 years. But at al this we didn't consider, as in the first calculation, the warmth current out of the reservoir, after its temperature reaches the values in the second half of the entire temperature range toward the stable temperature T0. Considering it in this calculation method would complicate the calculation, but in any case it would just prolong the calculated regeneration time, which is already too long for reasonable exploiting of a such reservoir. Temp. (deg.C) 500,00 512,50 525,00 537,50 550,00 562,50 575,00 587,50 595,00

SM (km2) 2,00 1,75 1,50 1,25 1,00 0,81 0,63 0,44 0,25

RM (K/W) 0,00041667 0,00047619

RM (K/kW) 0,416667 0,476190

τ (years) 3924,1 4485

t1 (years)

t2 (years)

Δt (years)

8035

9326

1290

0,00066667

0,666667

6279

13056

15602

2546

0,00102881

1,028807

9689

24077

30792

6716

0,00189394

1,893939

17837

56686

85393

28707 39259

Table A.F.3 Table of regeneration toward the stable temperature according to different exponential curves of changing temperature in particular temperature intervals.

103

The partial calculations in the particular temperature intervals were: ΔTA (500 do 525 deg.C): ΔTB (525 do 550 deg.C): ΔTC (550 do 575 deg.C): ΔTD (575 do 595 deg.C):

ΔtA = 4484l year * (ln(100/873) – ln(75/873)) ΔtB = 6278 year * (ln(75/873) – ln(50/873)) ΔtC = 9689 year * (ln(50/873) – ln(25/873)) ΔtD = 17836 year * (ln(25/873) – ln(5/873))

In the first situation we found out that the regeneration is faster, if we lower the temperature range of exploiting and regeneration under the natural stable temperature. Let’s verify this also in this situation. We cool down the same reservoir with stable temperature of 600 degrees to 400 degrees and allow it to regenerate back to 500 degrees C. Again the entire surrounding of the reservoir has higher temperatures of about 600 degrees and the warmth again flows in the reservoir inside the entire temperature interval through larger surface – let’s keep 2 km2. This means again that in the entire temperature range the thermal resistance and time constant don’t change and that we can make calculation according to one single exponential curve: Δt = 3900 years * (ln(200/873) – ln(100/873)) = 2700 years In the situation that we lower the temperature range still further on 300 to 400 degrees, we get with the same time constant the time of regeneration: Δt = 3900 years * (ln(300/873) – ln(200/873)) = 1580 years The conclusion of both situations in this case is that we get acceptable regeneration times only if the exploited reservoir resides enough near to the heat source of already melted rock. We probably get similar situations in volcanic regions, where magma penetrates through tectonic faults higher into Earth's crust. In these situations no big differences in calculated regeneration times exist, although already some 10 years mean a lot for maintaining of inactive machinery. If we already decide for such alternate production regime of geothermal energy, it is essential that the temperature range is lower from the stable rock temperature. In this situation is also the calculation of regeneration time simpler and more realistic. It is essential that we consider the natural properties of energy fluxes and don't make too rough estimations. The combination of independent professional geology and physic knowledge with computer models will give more accurate picture about warmth conduction through the space and geological layers and answer more accurately about sense of exploiting geothermal energy in particular cases. The calculations show also to absurdity of enforcing geothermal exploiting of hot rock, which is in the depth warmed to a stable high temperature, but in the

104

same time too much distant from the Earth's mantle that the regeneration could be fast. In shown case we could exhaust with a 100 MW power plant above the reservoir from the second situation this quantity f energy (8,25*109 kWh) in less then 10 years (with considering of bad effectiveness of warmth machines still much faster !!!). But the regeneration of reservoir would last in the best case more than 1.000 years. Distance to mantle (m)

Stable temp. (deg. C)

Temp. Regenerati range on time (deg. C) (years)

Warmth influx cross section (km2) 105 2,00

100

800 700 - 800

100

800 500 - 600

2.500

600 500 - 600

100

800 500 - 600

2.500

600 500 - 600

2.500

600 400 - 500

2.700 2,00

2.500

600 300 - 400

1.580 2,00

45 2,00 3.650 2,00 do 0,25 64 2,00 39.000 2,00 do 0,25

Calculation methodology Middle warmth current Middle warmth current Middle warmth current in shorter intervals Exponential temperature course Exponential temperature course in shorter intervals Exponential temperature course Exponential temperature course

Table F.A.4 Overview of regeneration time calculations for situations in the second case. We can conclude that we must take into account real times of regeneration of warmth stores, if we exhaust them with taking away more energy as the value of source warmth current from the heat source in melted stone into the reservoir in the stable condition is. What will be the proportion of exploiting and regeneration times, depends of course on the intensity of exploiting in comparison with this source warmth current in the stable condition.

105