HOME
 TOP

There is no Scientific Validity to Greenhouse Gases Creating Global Warming

Global warming was railroaded onto society through research publications which lack the necessary methodology for evaluation and criticism. From the viewpoint of an opposing scientist, global warming through greenhouse gases is ridiculous on its face. Small amounts of something, like carbon dioxide, cannot heat large amounts of something, like the atmosphere, through conduction.

Each CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules at 400 parts per million CO2. Therefore, each CO2 molecule would have to be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility. There cannot be greenhouse gases creating global warming for this reason. If a brick building contained 2,500 bricks, heating one brick would not heat the building.

Trapping heat in the atmosphere is also absurd. Radiation absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere is re-emitted in about half of a pico second. Such a short duration is not trapping heat. The calculation follows this logic: The vibration of atoms creates infrared radiation of the frequency at which the atoms vibrate. The infrared radiation emitted by all terrestrial matter, called black body radiation, covers the wavelengths of 1 to 100 microns. For the earth, it peaks at about 25 microns. This means a representative vibration rate for the atoms is twelve trillion vibrations per second. (speed of light divided by 25 microns equals twelve trillion, 3x108 ÷ 25x10-6 = 12x1012) The inverse of this says there are 83 femto seconds per vibration (1 ÷ 12x1012 = 83x10-15)

When radiation is absorbed by CO2 in the air, about five vibrations would release the energy as infrared radiation. The reason why it's more than one vibration is because the atoms impart some energy to the surrounding atoms which they bump into, and then each emits the energy as infrared radiation. So five emissions get rid of the energy of one absorption. Five bumps at 83 femto seconds each is 415 femto seconds, which is about half of a pico second for releasing absorbed radiation.

With a bell curve distribution over five molecules, the CO2 molecule would have to be heated about half of 2,500°C, which is 1250°C, while the other five are heated 250°C each, to get 1°C atmospheric result. But in actuality, the CO2 would be heated trillionths of a degree, while five others are heated less. This effect rides on top of normal temperatures, which are mostly produced through conduction, convection and evaporation.

Where then do we get the expression "heat trapping gas." It's totally contrived for propaganda purposes. Along with it, we get "delicate balance." Carbon dioxide and temperatures in the atmosphere vary massively over time. There is nothing delicate about climate. There was five times as much CO2 in the air during dinosaur years and twenty times as much when modern photosynthesis evolved. Photosynthesis is now on a starvation diet of 5% of what it evolved on. All biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of carbon dioxide in the air needed for photosynthesis.

Conservatives are the critics of global warming, but they will not produce basic science criticism. They say the underlying physics is simple and unquestionable but global warming is not occurring because of clouds. For physics, they are looking at a published fudge factor which any twelve-year-old could apply, not the underlying science. The fact is, the underlying science is so obscure that it cannot be dug out by other scientists. The most critical scientific publications do not present enough information to determine what was done. The conclusions can, however, be shown to be self-contradictory impossibilities.

For methodology, climatologists used radiative transfer equations to supposedly show 3.7 watts per square meter less radiation leaving the planet than entering from the sun due to carbon dioxide. There can never be a difference between energy inflow and outflow beyond minor transitions because of equilibrium, as climatologists recognize. Yet they claim the 3.7 w/m² is a permanent representation of global warming upon doubling CO2. This number is supposed to result in 1°C near-surface temperature increase as the primary effect by CO2. However, watts per square meter are units of rate, while rates produce continuous change, not a fixed 1°C. The 1°C was supposedly produced by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, but reversing it is not valid. (Secondary effects supposedly triple the 1°C to 3°C.)

It means climatologists started at the desired end point of 1°C and applied the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in the forward direction to the get the 3.7 w/m² attributed to radiative transfer equations. Radiative transfer equations cannot produce any such number, because radiation leaves from all points in the atmosphere with 15-30% going around greenhouse gases. That dynamic, combined with equilibrium, is beyond scientific quantitation.

Arctic ice melting is presented as a weapon of truth, always available year after year. The Arctic 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.

The so-called iceman was buried in ice on the Alps about 5,300 years ago. Ice melting uncovered him recently. Why was there no ice there 5,300 years ago? It's because climate is extremely dynamic, random and unpredictable.

The reference for radiative transfer equations is Myrhe et al, 1998 (pdf).