127: The urban heat island (UHI) effect - an explainer

 

The urban heat island (UHI) effect.

 

The conventional wisdom is that climate change is driven by rising carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels in the atmosphere, and only by CO₂; so the greater the (CO₂) levels the greater the temperature increase (see Fig. 87.3 in Post 87). You may have noticed one direct consequence of this orthodoxy in the way the media these days reports on environmental disasters or extreme weather (floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, heatwaves, forest fires etc.): they always refer to climate change.

Implicit to this climate change reference is the assumption that all climate change is due to CO₂ even though CO₂ is rarely explicitly mentioned and the causation is rarely demonstrated. Consequently, the solution to all extreme weather events appears to be simple and obvious: cut CO₂ levels in the atmosphere (i.e. Net Zero) and everything will be fine. Except it won't. This is because much of what is happening to local climates has little or nothing to do with CO₂, but it does have a lot to do with other human activities, not least urbanization and industrialization. Central to both of these is the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

The problem when discussing the impact of the UHI effect on climate, and in particular the temperature record, is that it is controversial. This is partly because much of climate science appears to be driven by an anti-fossil fuel dogma that therefore sees any talk of UHIs as at best a distraction from the supposed only true problem, CO₂, and at worst a campaign of disinformation designed to undermine all of climate science and its campaign against CO₂. But it is also partly because UHIs come in many flavours. 

There are those UHIs that just trap more heat by reducing airflows and those that store more solar heat than rural areas by virtue of increased heat capacities. Both of these do not add to the total amount of energy absorbed at the Earth's surface though, so there is no net global temperature increase associated with them. But then there are those UHI processes that do absorb extra heat, either via changes to the albedo of the Earth's surface, or by the emission of large amounts of additional heat through anthropogenic energy use and generation. Both of these certainly do add to global warming but are still largely ignored by climate science. In the following sections I will discuss the relative impact of each of these four types of UHI effect in turn and show that one type in particular can be very significant.

i) Heat trapping

The aspect of the UHI effect that is referred to the most is heat trapping. This is where tall buildings in a city reduce the flow of hot air away from the centre causing the city to retain its heat longer. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is Manhattan in New York City with its dense cluster of tall skyscrapers.

The result of this UHI effect is that the local area of the city stays hotter for longer compared to if the buildings were not there. This is because there is less diffusion of heat to outlying areas, so those areas are less likely to be warmed by the city and the city is less likely to be cooled by heat transfer to the rural areas that surround it. 

However, this does not lead to more global warming because while the city will be hotter for longer than otherwise expected, the surrounding area will be cooler for longer as well because less heat from the urban areas reaches the rural areas. The key point here is that no extra heat is created at the surface of the Earth, it is just prevented from diffusing to colder regions. So the net effect on local mean temperatures is zero. As an example consider the Grand Canyon. It will trap heat in the same way that tall buildings do, but does that mean that it is warming faster than the rest of Arizona? No, and nor does it make Arizona as a whole get any warmer.

This is one reason why climate scientists discount the UHI effect, and in this case they are right, provided that the weather stations used to monitor temperature changes are evenly distributed and their temperature readings are not adjusted. Those, unfortunately, are big IFs, because any bias in station numbers between urban and rural regions compared to their relative areas will affect the the relative contribution of each to the mean global temperature, and we do know that station densities are generally higher in urban areas. So potentially there are more warm urban stations contributing to the global average than there should be and fewer cold rural ones. In an ideal world, though, this should not occur, and so neither would any contribution to global temperatures.

Net effect on global warming: zero.

ii) Increased heat capacity

Probably the second most cited variation of the UHI effect is heat retention where cities heat up and store energy from the Sun during the day and then gradually release it overnight. The net effect of this is that the maximum temperature in the city during the day should be less than expected because of the time it takes the buildings to heat up. This is because the Sun is not just heating up the top layer of the Earth's surface, as would be the case in rural areas; it is also having to heat up large concrete structures with much higher heat capacities. The higher the local heat capacity of these structures, the longer it takes to warm them and the slower, and therefore lower, their temperature rise will be. This in turn means that less infra-red radiation is then radiated back into outer space during the day because the region is cooler than it would be without the buildings, and so there is less heating of the lower atmosphere and less downwelling radiation.

At night, however, the heating from the Sun stops. The rural areas cool quickly but the urban areas don't because the urban areas have the much higher heat capacity: there is more heat stored that needs to be lost before a new thermal equilibrium without the Sun can be established. So the buildings are now warmer than their rural surroundings but are slowly cooling, acting like large radiators or storage heaters. This means that the city stays warmer for longer, and temperatures within the city are higher at night than they would otherwise be. 

The net effect of this is that temperatures during the day will be lower, but those at night-time will be higher. Overall, though, the effect on the average temperature will be zero as the two changes in temperature cancel due to the fact that the changes in heat absorption will also cancel.

Net effect on global warming: zero.

iii) Increased heat absorption

One consequence of urban development is that it changes the reflectivity of the Earth's surface for incident visible, ultraviolet and near infra-red radiation. This reflectivity is known as the albedo and it is loosely related to the colour of a surface: darker colours tend to absorb more radiation while lighter ones generally reflect more. If the albedo increases, then more radiation is reflected back into space without heating the planet, so ice and snow help to cool the planet (their albedo is over 80%) while dark soil and oceans tend to warm the planet (see Table 14.1 in Post 14 for a list of typical albedos). It therefore follows that if the colour of a surface changes, then so will its albedo, and this can then change the amount of radiation absorbed at the surface. If this absorbed radiation increases, then the Earth will get warmer and the UHI effect is one way this can happen.

In Post 14 I explained that of the average incoming solar radiation of 341 W/m² that the Earth receives, only 161 W/m² is absorbed at its surface, and that greenhouse gases then amplify this with 333 W/m² of additional downwelling radiation. This total absorbed heat of 494 W/m² then dictates the mean surface temperature via the Stefan-Boltzmann law (see Post 12). It therefore follows that if any change occurs at the Earth's surface that increases the 161 W/m² of absorbed radiation, then this will change the downwelling radiation by the same percentage and therefore change the mean surface temperature as well.

The process of urbanization inevitably involves changing the colour and texture of the Earth's surface. It generally means that areas of vegetation are replaced with tarmac and concrete. Buildings with dark roofs absorb more solar radiation than trees and grassland. However the situation is not straightforward because concrete can be very reflective and arable land tends to be very dark. Overall though, there is generally a small decrease in albedo with urbanization, and therefore a small increase in the amount of solar radiation that is absorbed. This will raise the surface temperature of the Earth slightly as well, but because it is small it is not likely to be significant.

One human innovation that can have a big impact on temperature is solar power. Because solar panels are designed to absorb 99% of solar radiation, they will add additional heating to any area where they are installed by reducing the albedo to less than 1%. So they may save on CO₂ emissions but they come with their own drawbacks, particularly if you live near them. And if they are added to roofs of buildings in cities and urban areas, they will substantially warm those areas.

Net effect on global warming: small increase in local temperatures.

iv) Heat production

There is one UHI effect that does significantly affect temperatures though: waste heat. This is where human energy use ends up as waste heat that heats the local environment around where the energy is being used. As I showed first in Post 14 and later in Post 29, this direct anthropogenic surface heating (DASH) can warm suburbs, cities and even whole countries by up to 1°C. But in fact even that warming is small compared to large cities like London. 

In 2013 the total energy use in Greater London from all sources was estimated at over 150,000 GWh. That is equivalent to an average power consumption of over 15 GW throughout the year. As the area of Greater London is about 1569 km², this amounts to a constant power density of 9.6 W/m². In Post 14 I explained how increasing the 161 W/m² of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth's surface by 2.25 W/m² would be sufficient to increase the mean surface temperature by 1°C. But I also explained that any other source of heat that was absorbed or produced at the surface would have the same effect. So 2.25 W/m² of waste heat generated at the surface would also lead to 1°C of warming.

In London the waste heat will amount to 9.6 W/m², more or less the same as the total power usage. This is because, according to the second law of thermodynamics, all energy is destined to end up as heat or entropy eventually. So waste heat is probably responsible for over 4°C of warming in London - not a great shock to people who live there. That is the urban heat island effect (UHI).

Of course not everyone sees it this way. In climate science this warming is dismissed as trivial because it only amounts to 0.028 W/m² of power use when averaged across the entire surface of the Earth, and so it only raises global mean temperatures by about 0.01°C. While this is technically correct, it neglects the uneven distribution of both these heat sources and the weather stations that determine the global temperature. Most weather stations are on land, almost 90% are in the Northern Hemisphere, and most of these are in the USA, Europe and China. So a high proportion are going to be distorted by the UHI effect from waste heat. That is what makes it important.

Net effect on global warming: large increase in large cities and much of Europe and the USA.

Summary

What I have shown here is that most types of urban heat island (UHI) have little or no effect on global warming with one exception: waste heat. This can add several degrees to the local temperatures.

However, even this is not the full story because the existence UHIs of themselves is not the only issue. Just because a small area of the Earth's surface retains or produces more heat than another does not mean that overall temperatures will rise and add to global warming. It is the change in heat retention and emission over time that is important, not the magnitude or difference from the rest of the environment. A UHI has no impact on global warming if its energy usage is not changing over time. Unfortunately in most cases the energy usage has changed, and by a large amount.

In the next six posts I will highlight six extreme examples of UHIs in the Southern Hemisphere. These are all examples of UHIs in large cities where the UHI temperature has increased much faster than that seen in the country or region as a whole, probably due to significant growth in the size, population and energy use in those cities.

89. The Greenhouse Effect on Mars

In my previous three posts I have explained how the Greenhouse Effect (GHE) works on Earth, and how it is affected by changes to the carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentration in the atmosphere. The problem with studying the GHE on Earth, though, is that its operation is complicated by the presence of large amounts of water vapour in the atmosphere. As water vapour also has a broader absorption band and higher atmospheric concentration than CO₂, this means that changes in the CO₂ concentration are less important than they would be otherwise. If we want to understand and measure the GHE just due to carbon dioxide, then we need an environment with high levels of CO₂ but low levels of other greenhouse gases. In this respect one of the best places to study is Mars. 

The Atmosphere of Mars

The Martian atmosphere has some similarities with Earth but many differences. It contains many of the same gases (nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, argon, CO₂), but the proportions are vastly different. The atmosphere of Mars is 96% CO₂ with about 2% nitrogen and 2% Argon (although different pages on Wikipedia give slightly different values such as 95% CO₂ and 3% nitrogen). There are also trace levels (< 0.1%) of other gases such as water vapour (210 ppm) and oxygen (0.15%). 

The other main difference in terms of the atmosphere is the pressure at the surface. At 610 Pa this is only 0.60% of the surface pressure on Earth, and as about 96% of this is CO₂, this means that there is a surface density of 3610 mol/m² of CO₂ on Mars compared to only 150 mol/m² on Earth. So any outgoing radiation from the surface of Mars has 24.06 times as much carbon dioxide gas to penetrate, in order to escape into outer space, compared to on Earth. What this means in practice is that the Greenhouse Effect in the Martian atmosphere should be easier to analyse because it can only have one source - CO₂.

 

The Energy Balance for Mars

Mars is also approximately 52% further from the Sun than is Earth, so one might expect that to mean that its surface is colder. This is true, but not as much as it should be based on distance alone. 

The solar radiation flux entering the Martian atmosphere is only 586 W/m² compared to the 1360 W/m² that irradiates the Earth. As this radiation is spread over a surface area (4πr²) that is four times greater than the cross-sectional area of the planet (πr²) in each case, this means that the average radiation flux at the Martian surface is 143.5 W/m². Yet this is only 22% less than the 184 W/m² that reaches the Earth's surface. This is because nearly 50% of incident radiation on Earth is either reflected by clouds or is absorbed by ozone and water vapour in the upper atmosphere. But there are no clouds, ozone or significant water vapour on Mars.

Then there is the issue of surface albedo or Bond albedo. This is the proportion of incident radiation that is reflected by the planet back out into space without being absorbed, either from clouds or the surface. For Earth this is about 31%; for Mars it is only 25%. This means that the average surface absorption on Mars is 108 W/m² compared to 161 W/m² on Earth. So while Mars only receives 43% of the solar radiation that Earth does, after absorption and reflection the Martian surface receives 67% of the radiation that the Earth's surface does. That is a relative increase of more than 50% for Mars which partially compensates for its greater distance from the Sun.

Calculating the Surface Temperature of Mars

If we now invoke the Stefan-Boltzmann law (see Eq. 13.1 in Post 13),

I = σT⁴

(89.1)

where I is the surface radiation flux, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and T is the surface temperature in kelvins, we see that a surface radiation flux of 108 W/m² equates to a mean surface temperature on Mars of 209 K (or -64°C). Yet the true mean temperature is thought to be about 215 K (or -58°C). The difference is due to the Greenhouse Effect. 

For comparison, on Earth a solar flux at the surface of 161 W/m² would equate to a mean surface temperature of 231 K (or -42°C), yet the true mean temperature is about 289 K (or +16°C). So the GHE on Earth adds 58°C of warming while on Mars it only adds 6°C. Yet there is almost twenty-five times more carbon dioxide on Mars (3690 mol/m²) than on Earth (150 mol/m²), so you would expect the greenhouse effect due to CO₂ to be stronger. But how much stronger? The answer is: not very. In fact it is significantly less than the actual measured value on Earth.

Calculating the Strength of the GHE on Mars

In Post 87 I showed how the width of the CO₂ absorption band at 15 µm can be determined using the known concentration of CO₂ (N_o), its scattering or absorption cross-section (σ_s), the quantized frequency of rotation of the CO₂ molecules (B), and the temperature (T). From this it is possible to estimate the critical CO₂ concentration needed to absorb most of the infra-red radiation (N_th). The term N_th can be estimated to be 0.5 mol/m² based on the value of σ_s, while N_o will be about half the total CO₂ concentration, so N_o = 1845 mol/m². From this we can estimate the maximum number of excited rotational states in the absorption band, J_th, using (see Post 87)

(89.2)

where k is Boltzmann's constant, h is Planck's constant and Z is a normalization constant (see Eq. 87.2 in Post 87) equal to 185.5 in this case. The ratio term kT/hB has the value 185.3 (as hB = 0.1 meV and T = 215 K) and is always approximately equal to the Z value. 

The result we obtain is that J_th = 36.3, which, given that the spacing of the bands is 0.2 meV, means that the absorption band has a width of 14.52 meV and extends from a wavelength of 13.78 µm to 16.44 µm. This compares to a calculated range of 14.00 µm to 16.14 µm for the same band on Earth, although the measured width on Earth is actually found to be from about 13.35 µm to 17.35 µm. So even though the calculated width of the 15 µm absorption band for Mars is slightly larger than the equivalent for Earth, it is not significantly greater. But it is significantly less than the measured band width on Earth.

 

Fig. 89.1: The electromagnetic emission spectrum for the surface of Mars at a mean temperature of 215K (blue curve) together with the absorption profile due to CO₂ between 13.78 µm and 16.44 µm (red curve).

The impact of the high Martian atmospheric CO₂ concentration on the radiation feedback is demonstrated in Fig. 89.1 above. The red curve indicates the proportion of the outgoing infra-red radiation (blue curve) that is reflected by the CO₂ molecules and it amounts to f = 12.5%. This is slightly more than the 10% seen for the GHE due to backscattering from CO₂ on Earth (see Post 87) despite the absorption band being further from the peak in the emission spectrum due to the lower surface temperature on Mars.

Calculating the Temperature Rise

The radiation feedback of  f = 12.5% shown in Fig. 89.1 equates to a 14.3% increase in the surface radiation and also of T⁴ (because of Eq. 89.1), which then equates to a 3.4% increase in T. So if the initial surface temperature on Mars without the GHE was 209 K, the temperature with the GHE included will be 3.4% greater, or 216.1 K. This means that the temperature rise at the surface due to the Greenhouse Effect is expected to be 7.1 K, which is pretty close to the observed value of around 6 K (or 6°C). The reason for the small difference could be the limited availability of accurate Mars temperature data, or the uncertainty in the value of the CO₂ absorption cross-section, σ_s.

We know how much radiation from the Sun is arriving at Mars to high accuracy, but knowing how much is being absorbed by the planet surface is more difficult as this depends on an accurate measurement of the Bond albedo. However, conventional astronomical telescopes should be able to measure the reflected radiation to pretty good accuracy as well. That allows us to estimate the expected mean surface temperature without the GHE to fairly high precision. The problem is knowing what the actual surface temperature is with the GHE in operation. This is a difficult enough calculation to do on Earth where we have over 16,000 weather stations measuring the surface temperature on a daily basis, and numerous satellites in orbit. Sadly, none, or very little, of this exists for Mars.

So far in this blog post I have assumed a value of 215 K for the mean surface temperature of Mars, but some reports have put it as high as 225 K (or as low as 210 K). In which case Z = 194.15 and J_th = 37.0. This leads to a 15 µm band stretching from 13.76 µm to 16.47 µm, and a feedback factor of f = 13.0%. Under these circumstances the warming from the Greenhouse Effect increases slightly, but only to 7.7°C. 

 

A Comparison with Earth

For comparison, it is instructive to hypothecate the extent of warming on Earth if its atmosphere also contained 3690 mol/m² of CO₂. In that case Z = 249.3 and J_th = 41.6, which leads to a 15 µm band stretching from 13.62 µm to 16.67 µm, and a feedback factor of f = 14.1%. The resulting predicted temperature rise due to CO₂ would be 10.74 K, which is 3.26°C less than the 7.48°C rise currently predicted for Earth as was shown in Post 87). So a twenty-five fold increase in the CO₂ concentration would only result in a 3.26°C temperature increase, although as I showed in Post 87, masking by water vapour would probably reduce this by 75% to only 0.8°C. 

It is a point of note that the density of CO₂ molecules on Mars (3690 mol/m²) is more than double the combined density of all the greenhouse gases on Earth (1560 mol/m²), yet it results in a temperature rise of 5°C - 7°C that is almost ten times less than the 58°C observed for Earth. This is mainly because most of the GHE on Earth is due to water vapour as the width of the CO₂ absorption band is so much less than that for water vapour. Even increasing the concentration of CO₂ on Mars by a factor of twenty-five cannot appreciably change this.

Summary and Conclusions

What I hope I have shown in this post is that Mars is a good test bed for studying the Greenhouse Effect (GHE). Knowing only its albedo, the atmospheric concentration of CO₂, and the intensity of radiation arriving from the Sun, it is possible to accurately predict the temperature rise due to the Greenhouse Effect. This I have predicted to be about 7°C, in close agreement with the current estimate based on observational data (6°C). And this is despite the significant uncertainty over the true measured value of the mean surface temperature on Mars.

The reduced GHE on Mars relative to the Earth occurs despite its much higher (i.e. 24 times greater) atmospheric CO₂ concentration. This in turn suggests that the increasing levels of atmospheric CO₂ we are currently seeing on Earth will produce only slight temperature increases in the future. 

Yes, Mars has its own complicating factors. Heat retention on Mars is limited by the thin atmospheric blanket compared to Earth. This means that the planet does not retain heat very well, but conversely it means that the atmosphere will warm quickly when heated by the Sun. For this reason it may be better to consider Mars under direct solar illumination in daytime. Under these conditions the peak solar flux at the surface of Mars will be four times greater than stated above, or 432 W/m². This will equate to a peak surface temperature of 295 K (or +22°C). Yet the actual maximum temperature is reported to be around 303 K to 308 K (or +30°C to +35°C). So on this measure the warming from the Greenhouse Effect in daytime near the equator appears to be in the range 8°C to 13°C. Yet the predicted value based on a calculation of the width of the 15 µm absorption band is found to be 10.9°C, in other words in the mid-range of the observed values. Once again this is still much less than the total warming seen on Earth and comparable to the contribution to Earth's GHE seen just from CO₂.

14. Surface heating

The principal claim made by climate scientists is that global temperatures have increased by about 1 °C over the last 100 years. In the last post I outlined three ways that this might happen. The first, which was due to changes in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, I discounted due to a lack of evidence or plausible mechanism. The last, changes to the radiative forcing term I will discuss at a later date. In this post I will consider the second possibility: changes to the amount of direct heat absorption at the surface of the Earth. There are essentially only two ways this can happen: (i) through changes to the Earth’s reflectivity or albedo; (ii) by direct heating of the surface from energy sources other than the Sun.

(i) Changing the Earth’s albedo.

As I explained in the last post, one way that the Earth's surface temperature might change is if the proportion of light from the Sun that is reflected from the surface were to change. The amount reflected is called the albedo. This effect can be seen in Fig. 14.1 below which is taken from a 2009 paper by Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo and Jeffrey Kiehl (Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 90 (3): 311–324). On the left of Fig. 14.1 where the direct radiation from the Sun (in yellow) impacts the surface, the radiation is partially reflected with 23 W/m² being reflected and 161 W/m² is absorbed. This equates to an albedo of 0.125 ( = 23/(23+161) ).

As an aside: it seems slightly suspicious that the fractions reflected at the surface (1/8) and at the top of the atmosphere (102/341 = 30%) are so close to simple fractions. Does this indicate a high degree of uncertainty in these numbers, I wonder?

Fig. 14.1: The Earth's energy balance according to Trenberth et al. (2009). 

In order for the surface temperature of the Earth to have increased by 1 °C, one way that this could have happened would be for the amount of energy absorbed at the surface to have increased over time by 2.3 W/m². If this were to be achieved through changes to the albedo, then the albedo would need to have decreased from 0.1375 to 0.125. That is a change of 0.0125. So how likely is this?

The albedo of the Earth's surface depends of the type of material of the surface, as shown in Table 14.1. It also depends on the angle of incidence of the light as light tends to reflect more off surfaces at glazing incidence. So ocean water at the equator has a lower albedo than it does near the poles. However, there is also much less surface area near the poles which consequently reduces the contribution of high angle reflectance. 

Surface	% of Earth's     Surface Area	Albedo    %	Contribution to the     Earth's Albedo
Ocean	71.00	6	0.0426
Forest	7.62	8-18	0.0091
Grassland	7.93	25	0.0198
Arable	2.37	17	0.0040
Desert sand	5.51	40	0.0220
Urban	0.21	20	0.0004
Glaciers & ice caps	2.90	80	0.0232
Shrub & tundra	2.46	15	0.0037

Table 14.1: Approximate albedo of different parts of the Earth's surface.

The most common claims made about land use and climate changes are in regard to deforestation, increasing agricultural use, and increased urbanization. First it is claimed that deforestation for farming, particularly livestock farming aids global warming. As far as changes to the albedo are concerned, the evidence in Table 14.1 seems to point the other way. Turning forests into grassland increases the albedo.

Urbanization is also generally believed to reduce albedo, partly through what is termed the urban heat island (UHI) effect. This is the theory that cities with large amounts of concrete soak up more heat, and tall buildings trap that heat. This may be true, but it may also be a small localized effect. Again the data in Table 14.1 does not support it as a major driver of global warming.

A third claim is often made about polar ice and glaciers. The claim is that, because ice and snow have high levels of albedo, any change in their total albedo would have a large impact on global temperatures. The two main negative effects cited tend to be reductions in area by melting, or black carbon soot particles that drop on the surface and reduce the albedo. The main problem here is that the changes required are huge; a 54% decrease in area, or a decrease in albedo from 0.80 to 0.37. The first obviously has not and will not happen, and the latter is very unlikely as it would require huge levels of soot deposits.

The conclusion is, therefore, that changes to the Earth's albedo are difficult to achieve, and any that might have occurred have probably produced very little real effect in terms of increasing global temperatures.



(ii) Direct anthropogenic surface heating due to human and industrial activity.

The proposition here is this. All energy generation by humans results in an output of heat or thermal energy. Not only does every industrial process produce waste heat, but all mechanical work that is done by that process eventually ends up as heat or entropy as well. These are the consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and as every physicist knows, nothing can defeat the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So as temperature is just a measure of heat and entropy, it follows that everything humans do, every industrial process they create, all the energy that goes in will, in the end, just heat up the environment.

In the last post I showed that an increase of 2.3 ± 0.5 W/m² in the amount of radiation at the surface would raise global temperatures by 1 °C. So if we can work out what the rate of energy production and consumption by humans is, then we can equate that to a global temperature rise. The starting point for this is clear: we know from IPCC reports and the protestations of climate scientists that the human race currently emits 36 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into the atmosphere. That CO₂ is created primarily by three processes.

The first is the burning of pure carbon (from coal) that produces an energy output of 394 kJ/mol for the process

(14.1)

The second is burning of methane (natural gas) that produces an energy output of 882 kJ/mol for the process

(14.2)

The third is the burning of higher alkanes (from oil) that produces an energy output of about 660 kJ per mole of CO₂ for the process

(14.3)

Each of the above energy outputs is for the burning of carbon or hydrocarbons to produce one mole of CO₂. To work out how energy that amounts to in total we need to know how much of each type of fossil fuel was used.

In 2018 global coal production was 7665 million tonnes, natural gas production was 3955 billion cubic metres or 2786 million tonnes (assuming 1 cubic metre = 704.5 g), and crude oil production was 4472 million tonnes. That suggests a mean energy output of about 560 kJ/mol. As 36 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equates to 8.18 x 10m¹⁴ moles, then the total energy consumption would have been 4.58 x 10²⁰ J for the year, or 52,268 TWh.

Fig. 14.2: Global fossil fuel consumption since 1800.

However, according to the Our World In Data website, the global energy consumption from fossil fuels in 2017 amounted to 36,704 TWh from natural gas, 53,752 TWh from crude oil and 43,397 TWh from coal (see Fig. 14.2 above). The total of these values (133,853 TWh) is 2.53 times the value based on CO₂ emissions and suggests only 39% of fossil fuel combustion results in CO₂. This higher figure equates to an average power density at the Earth's surface of 0.030 W/m² across the whole surface of the Earth. That is turn implies a global temperature increase (based on the 2.3 W/m² required for a 1 °C increase that I demonstrated in the last post) of 0.013 °C compared to pre-industrial times. This, though, still omits the impact of nuclear power and renewables.

Fig. 14.3: Global energy production by energy type (2005-2018).

According to Statistica.com renewables and nuclear energy accounted for 15.3% of global energy consumption in 2018, and fossil fuel usage in 2018 exceeded that in 2017 (see Fig. 14.3 above), so that implies a global temperature increase of at least 0.015 °C compared to pre-industrial times. This temperature increase of 0.015 °C is, however, at least 60 times less than the one the IPCC is claiming for global warming since 1850. So this suggests that any resulting surface heating is such a small effect that we can safely ignore it, right? Well, not so fast.

We know that this heat is not spread evenly, its impact is greatest in the areas where most people live and work. We know that 90% of people live in the Northern Hemisphere; we know that 99.999% of people live on land. It is also true that 90% of weather stations are in the Northern Hemisphere, and at least 99.9% of them are on land. In other words there is a high degree of correlation between where people live, where industrial energy usage is, and where the weather stations are. For example, 19.7% of the Earth's surface is land in the Northern Hemisphere. So if 90% of the energy use is found there then the mean temperature rise on land in the Northern Hemisphere will be 0.069 °C. But of course, even that fails to tell the whole story. If we look at individual countries the results become even more stark.

If we start with what has been, historically, the biggest CO₂ producer, the USA, we see that it accounts for about 20% of global energy use despite being home to only 4.3% of the world's population, and covering only 1.6% of the Earth's surface area. That suggests that the power density for surface heating in the USA should be about 0.38 W/m² (an increase by a factor of 12.6 on the global average of 0.03 W/m²). This picture is confirmed by data from the US Energy Information Administration that indicates that the total power consumption of the 48 contiguous states (excluding Hawaii and Alaska) is 100.3 x 10¹⁵ BTU (see Fig. 14.4 below) over an area of 8.08 x 10⁶ km². As 1 BTU (British thermal unit) is the equivalent of 1055 J, this gives a power density for surface heating of 0.42 W/m². Yet this increases to 0.69 W/m² in Texas and 1.11 W/m² in Pennsylvania. That means that the temperature rise in Pennsylvania due to surface heating is almost 0.5 °C. But if we look at Europe the situation is even more extreme.

 Fig. 14.4: US energy consumption since 1950 by sector (in BTU).

According to the IEA, the UK's energy usage in 2018 was 177 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe), or 2059 TWh (1 Mtoe = 11.63 MWh). As the area of the UK is only 242,495 km², that equates to a power density of 0.97 W/m² and a temperature rise of 0.42 °C. But it is safe to assume that that energy usage will not be spread evenly across the country. At least 84% of both the UK population and UK economic activity is found in England (with an area of 130,395 km²) which implies a temperature rise for England alone of 0.66 °C. Yet that is still modest compared to Belgium and the Netherlands with their much higher population densities (see Table 14.2 below) where the projected temperature rise is close to 1.0 °C. That is more than the IPCC claims for global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.

Country	Energy Usage (Mtoe)	Power Density (W/m2)	Temperature Rise (°C)
UK	177	0.97	0.42
Italy	151	0.66	0.29
France	245	0.50	0.22
Belgium	52	2.25	0.98
Netherlands	72	2.30	1.00
Germany	298	1.11	0.48
Austria	33	0.52	0.23
Switzerland	24	0.77	0.34

Table 14.2: Energy usage, surface heating and temperature rise in Europe.

What Table 14.2 illustrates is that surface heating is a significant factor in overall global warming, and it is occurring in every major EU country, including those that border the Alps. In fact the average temperature rise over all five of the main alpine countries is 0.30 °C. It is perhaps no wonder then that the alpine glaciers have been retreating for over a century, while those in Norway and New Zealand, where the population density (and also the economic activity) is much lower, have remained more stable. But what this warming is not due to is increased CO₂ levels in the atmosphere or an enhanced Greenhouse Effect. That is a completely separate issue.

The conclusion we can draw from this is that, in most developed countries, warming of up to 1.0 °C has occurred since pre-industrial times, and this warming is solely a result of industrial activity and the heat that is generated as a result of that activity. This will occur irrespective of the energy type or source used because it is the heat that is directly warming the planet, not increases in the concentration of waste gases that then add to the Greenhouse Effect. This also means that when the energy usage goes down, the temperature should go down.

This has major implications for future energy policy because it means that nuclear power and most renewables are no better than fossil fuels. It also means that the efficiency of energy generation is as important as the quantity of energy generation in determining the amount of warming.

Fig. 14.5: Efficiencies of different power sources.

As an example of the impact of energy efficiency consider the case of solar photovoltaics. The relative efficiencies of different power sources are illustrated in Fig. 14.5 above. Of these photovoltaics are among the least efficient. They are in fact only about 15% efficient, meaning that for every 100 joules of energy they harvest from the Sun, they only create 15 joules of electricity. Yet in order to do this solar cells need to be 95% efficient in terms of absorbing incoming solar radiation. In other words their albedo needs to be less than 0.05. That means that for every 100 joules of solar radiation that falls on a solar cell, 5 joules is reflected back into space, 15 joules is turned into electricity (which will then become surface heat at the point of use), and 80 joules becomes waste surface heat in the solar cell.

Now a fashionable policy proposal at the moment is to put large numbers of photovoltaics in the Sahara Desert and then pump the electricity they produce to wherever it is needed. The problem is that not only will the electricity generated heat the location of its end user, but the solar cells will heat up the desert by decreasing the local albedo from 0.40 to 0.05. That is a double whammy. It is global warming without the need for CO₂. Now you don't hear much about that from climate scientists.