Vincent J. Curtis
28 Nov 2018
I propose to set forth my objections to the fear-monger
surrounding the issue of run-away global warming.
The most important factor in the warming of the earth is the
energy output of the sun. If the sun
went dark, it would not take long for the earth to assume a temperature
approximating that of outer space. The
sun is where all the heat comes from. The difference between summer and winter and
between day and night serve as examples of the power of the sun. We can call the energy output of the sun the
first order factor of the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere.
All the anthropogenic
global warming hypotheses assume that the energy output of the sun is
absolutely constant. This is a radical
and unwarranted assumption. The earth
has experienced several ice ages, and periods of great warmth, as when the dinosaurs
roamed the planet. In the 20th
century alone, the 1930s were a period of extraordinary heat, and the earth’s
temperature cooled between 1940 and 1970 – setting off a ‘coming ice age’
scare. None of these things had anything
to do with man or carbon dioxide. The
sun is the first order factor of the earth’s atmospheric temperature, and all
second and higher order factors react to it.
Let’s assume for the moment that absolute constancy holds,
at least for brief periods of time. We
look then at the second and third order factors that affect global atmospheric
temperature .If the assumption that
global temperatures are affected by atmospheric carbon dioxide is true, what
can we expect as carbon dioxide increased in concentration? As a first
approximation, we would expect global average temperature to increase linearly as
follows: ΔT = mΔC, where ΔT is the increase in temperature, ΔC is the increase
in carbon dioxide concentration, and m is the rate of increase. With all other factors being held constant we
should expect to see a consistent, linear increase in temperature with increase
in carbon dioxide. But we are not seeing
anything like that, and so all other factors cannot be constant. Factors other than carbon dioxide must also be
playing a role – a more important role - in increasing global temperatures.
Let’s look at another factor. The ideal gas law is as follows: PV=nRT,
where P is pressure, V is volume, n is the quantity of gas, T is absolute
temperature, and R is a constant. Since n,
the quantity of the atmosphere, is constant, and atmospheric pressure is constant,
any increase in temperature would result in an expansion of the volume of the
atmosphere. The atmosphere consists of
nitrogen to the extent of 78 percent, and nitrogen is subject to the
Joule-Thompson effect. This means that
an adiabatic expansion of a volume of nitrogen will result in a decrease in
temperature of the gas. Anyone who has
cracked open a cylinder of compressed nitrogen will have seen the valve and
outlet of the cylinder get covered in frost - this is the Joule-Thompson effect
in action. Any expansion of the earth’s
atmosphere due to an increase in temperature would see an offsetting response as
a result of that expansion. Since
nitrogen comprises 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere while carbon dioxide
comprises only 0.04 percent, the moderating effect of nitrogen is extremely
powerful as compared to a heating effect of carbon dioxide.
The atmosphere of Venus consists of 96 percent carbon
dioxide. Any likening of the earth
turning into a Venus fails to observe the large differences in compositions between
the two atmospheres. In addition, Venus
has about thirty times the amount of atmosphere that earth does. Where Venus has atmosphere, earth has oceans,
and the oceans have a far greater capacity to absorb heat and moderate
temperature than the earth’s atmosphere does.
The earth is nothing like Venus, and the earth’s atmosphere can’t experience
run-away temperatures without a dramatic change in solar output.
Carbon dioxide is ominously referred to as a “greenhouse
gas,” and people who make this observation don’t seem to know much about
greenhouses. Carbon dioxide is added to a
greenhouse to increase the bulk of the plants, not to heat the place. Plants use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis
to grow and develop; more CO2, bigger plants. The heat felt in greenhouses is produced by
the glass, not the gas.
My old university residence had common rooms that used to
get very hot on the coldest of winter days under a bright winter sun. Ordinary window glass traps most infra-red
radiation, and the bright sun shining on the dark carpet and furniture of the
common room produced a lot of infra-red radiation. The trapping of heat in a greenhouse relies
on plain window glass being opaque to most infra-red radiation. Greenhouses work by trapping infra-red radiation
with ordinary window glass, not with carbon dioxide, which absorbs at a
specific frequency of infra-red.
To recap to this point: the sun is where all the heat comes
from. The oceans are the great second
order moderator of heat on earth’s surface, due to their capacity both to
absorb heat from and release heat and moisture to the atmosphere. The third order moderator is the atmosphere
itself, being composed largely of nitrogen and not being all that massive,
especially as compared to the oceans.
The greatest variable in atmospheric composition is humidity,
and water vapor absorbs at specific frequencies in the infra-red region as
carbon dioxide does. Carbon dioxide is a
minor constituent. To the extent that
carbon dioxide absorbs (and emits) infra-red radiation at a specific frequency,
the global warming hypothesis requires a linear increase in atmospheric
temperature, neglecting the moderating effect of nitrogen, and holding all
other factors constant. But we aren’t seeing
simple, linear increases with ΔC. Other
factors must, therefore, be playing roles, and those factors are all more
powerful in their effects than carbon dioxide.
Significant, prolonged changes in global temperatures must
be due to natural variation in the first order – the sun. Smaller changes of shorter duration can be
due to changes in the second order – the oceans. In the third order, nitrogen, by absorbing or
releasing heat when expanding or contracting, tends to offset the effects of small
changes in the first and second orders. (Another example of Le Chatelier’s
principle in action, and explains why small changes do not result in run-away outcomes.)
Like water vapor, carbon dioxide doesn’t just absorb infer-red
radiation – it releases it too. At best,
the potential effect of carbon dioxide is to delay, but not prevent, the
release of heat to outer space, and is too small and too easily offset by
nitrogen, and by the oceans to be that consequential.
To this scientist, the experts who speak most fearfully of run-away
global warming are making unwarranted assumptions about all the important
factors, the first being solar output.
They exhibit no understanding of how a greenhouse works. They exhibit no knowledge of the
thermodynamics of real gases, or heat capacities. They don’t seem to understand the
establishment of a new equilibrium.
Their fears of run-away temperatures confirm to me their lack of
important knowledge. They simply ignore
(or worse – cover up) the failings of their theory.
Finally, they are unscientific. A time versus temperature graph does not
establish a cause-effect relationship between time and temperature, or anything
else.
On the other hand, the politics of global warming are
obvious and satisfying to many, especially on the left. A lot of people have made good money playing
prophets of doom. The sheer
politicization of what should be a scientific curiosity indicates to me that
politics is the predominant factor in all the fearmongering. The stench of politics hangs over climate science
like a sign of something rotten.
I hope this article serves as an antidote to fears of man-caused
run-away global warming.
-30-
Vincent J. Curtis is a Canadian research scientist and
occasional free-lance writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment