draw bridge  
Science Home
  fan belt  

Science Errors

Arctic Warming

Looking out the window and seeing global warming is an insult to intelligence. Why not look out the window in the winter time? What do you suppose they see 100 miles further north, where the average temperature is 2C colder?

A noticeable weather drift over the past few decades shows some evidence, but it is an increase in humidity caused by oceans warming. Oceans always do warm between ice ages, until they put so much moisture in the air that it causes the next ice age. It's scheduled to occur any time, but more humidity is needed, which will result in it occurring between 50 and 200 years from now.

A major fact about global warming is that air does not have enough heat capacity to warm ocean water the slightest amount, and even less so for melting Arctic ice. Every gram of melted Arctic ice was caused by warm Pacific Ocean water flowing over the Bering Strait, not heat in the air. Twelve-year-olds were supposed to learn what heat capacity is, but physicists didn't.

How much plastic can you melt by blowing on it? Not even one molecule? Same thing.

To heat oceans with air requires a ratio of 3483 by volume for same temperatures. The heat capacity for air is 1.2 kj/m/C, while for water it is 4180 kj/m/C. To heat the oceans 0.2C to a depth of 350 meters would require air losing 0.2C to a height of 1,219 kilometers (at constant surface pressure). That's 100 atmospheres. The oceans cannot be heated by the atmosphere.

Melting ice with air is even more absurd, as an additional "heat of fusion" is required, which is 334 kj/kg, which is an additional 278,000 m of air per C per m of ice. In other words, air in contact with ice sucks the heat out of the air with no effect upon the ice. With a small amount of ice and a lot of air, the cool air gets replace with warm air, but on a global scale, the replacing does not occur. It means ice melting has nothing to do with global warming.

Greenland is a little bit sensitive to warming due to the Gulf Stream sending warm water up that way. But humid air can add snow faster than it melts. Which means there is nothing highly predictable about ice on Greenland.

Himalayan glaciers are stable, as the IPCC admitted after a false citation, because low level ice melted since the last ice age, 12,000 years ago, and the ice that is left is at such a high elevation that warm air cannot get to it.

Minor changes in mountain glaciers occur constantly for no known reasons other than random weather changes, as shown by "the ice man" who recently thawed in the Alps. He was covered with ice which formed 5,300 years ago. What melted the ice 5,300 years ago and then caused it to reform? Certainly not humans.

The Arctic is warming due to warm Pacific Ocean water flowing over the Bering Strait, not a miniscule air temperature increase. With the recent El Nino, the northern Pacific Ocean is warming causing warm water to flow over the Bering Strait to heat the Arctic and melt Arctic ice.

The Contriving

Journalists who report on global warming have a high tendency to synthesize in unlimited ways. They imply that promotion of the noble cause demands embellishment and whatever it takes to convince the unbelievers that the planet needs to be saved. There is no such thing as a lie when you are on the right side of a noble cause.

There is a division of labor to this project. Scientists have their place, and journalists have theirs. The place of scientists is to make studies, which may be informative, and may be total crap. But they never go to the public with their information; that's what journalists are for. The propagandists in science will go half way there with vague press releases which raise more questions than they answer. Journalists do the answering. Scientists wouldn't be caught dead saying the things journalists say about global warming. Everything that moves, from hurricanes to pathology, is attributed to human-caused global warming by someone in journalism. An example of the extremism in journalism is an article by Dahr Jamail.

One element of the problem is that science cannot pin down the causes of climatic events. Scientists leave it to journalists to add their contrivances to the subject. Another problem is that principles of science are contradicted in everything journalists say about the subject, which is why scientists would not be caught dead saying those things. But they don't correct the journalists; they feed implications to the journalists knowing full well the fraud that will result.

As always, it's the standard that is the problem. Without a corrupt standard, errors get corrected. Why are not the frauds telling us enough about the Arctic to show the truth? The Artic has been melting off-and-on for at least a century. Some time around 1900, plans were made for a shipping route through the "Northwest Passage." It was navigated by Amundsen in 1903-1906. But ice soon closed it back up.

Science Home Page