.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Cosmic Variance

Friday, February 17, 2006

Global Warming is Pseudo Science!

The widely accepted Global Warming Theory, is a pseudo science and must be abandoned. Here I explain what it is and why it is totally wrong.

The Global Warming Theory (GWT) believes that human activity considerably increased the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. As a result it leads to considerable warming up of the arth's surface. As a consequence it could leads to the melting of polar ice and cause raising sea level, and other catastrophies that would eventually render the planet earth un-inhabitable to human. Some GWT doomers even believe that we have passed a point of no return. i.e., the global warming cause by human is already so high it releases the methane gas frozen in the polar ice, and methane, being a more effective green house gas, causes more global warming, and it leads to to more green house gas being release and so it leads to run off global warming that destroys all life on earth.

Complete Nonsense! First we have to realize that although human activity do contribute to raising CO2 level in the atmosphere, the amount of atmospheric CO2 is so low that it's green house effect is totally insignificant. Today's atmospheric CO2 is only 377 ppm (part per million), it is maybe 30% higher than pre-industrialization level. But the earth has experienced atmospheric CO2 density many orders of magnitude higher.

One has to realize that human can not make a single gram of carbon atoms. All the CO2 we release into the atmosphere, come from burning of fossil fuels like coal and petroleum. And fossil fuel came from buried ancient plantations. Ancient plantations obtained their carbon by absorbing CO2 out of the atmosphere. So here you go, by burning fossil fuel, you are just releasing ancient atmospheric CO2, right back into the atmosphere. And fossil fuel is a limited resource, at a time when you have burned the last ounce of fossil fuel, you still have not released enough CO2 to cause the atmospheric CO2 level go high enough to the level it once was, when the ancient plantation were growing to form the fossil fuels.

And we are pretty close to running out of fossil fuels. Because of that, we are facing an un-precedent energy crisis. But that's another story I will talk about the other day. For now keep in mind that even if we burn all of our fossil fuels, we are still far away from have an atmospheric CO2 level that is high enough to be of any concern.

Now go back to the GWT theory. The main pillar of GWT is that green house gases, which are gases containing three or more atoms per molecule, allow the short wave light of the solar radiation to go through to heat up the earth's surface, while at the same time, these molecules absorb the long wavelength heat radiation radiated from the surface of the earth, and re-radiate them back to the earth surface. So the heat is trapped on the surface of the earth, causing the surface temperature to be warmer than otherwise.

Sounds reasonable. Isn't it? GWT theorists also frequently cites the planet Venus as a good example of the global warming effect. However one thing they negnect to point out is that the atmospheric CO2 thickness on the Venus is 3x10^5 thicker than the earth's. And it warm up the Venus by less than 200 degrees. The earth has a CO2 layer 3x10^5 times thinner. So 200 degree divided by 3x10^5 times = 0.00007 degrees. The global warming caused by CO2 is virtually nothing on earth, if the data on Venus can tell us something.

How much is 377 ppm of the earth's atmospheric CO2? If the CO2 condense into a liquid layer on the surface of the earth, it's no more than 3 milimeter thick. Such a thin layer can not absorb any radiation or trap any heat in any significant way.

The most fatal fraud in the GWT theory, is that they have forgotten some basic common sense physics that every one should learn from elementary school. Radiation is NOT the only way heat can be dissipated! There is radiation, convection, and evaporation. Any one has any doubt need to look at the cold snap in Russia a few weeks ago. They have such a cold temperature NOT because all of a sudden they have a hole of green house gases on top of their sky, and that all their heat gets radiated away. They are cold because of air convection. Cold air from the polar area flow to the ground, and caused the extreme cold.

Air convection and water evaporation are much more important contributing factors than radiation, in how the ground dissipate the heat. And it happens every day, not just during a cold day. We often have experience that once the sun sets, the temperature drops pretty quickly. Temperatures can't drop that fast by radiation along, if it were not for the heat loss caused by the air circulation.

The most important forms of surface heat disipation is by water evaporation, which absorbs large amount of heat, and also by hot air raising in the sky during day time and cooler air sink down during the nights. In both cases, the water vapor and hot air raise to high above the ground. When they come back down, in the form of rain fall and cold air. They are cold and further absorbed surface heat.

Clearly, in between water vapor and hot air raising and cold rain and air falling, a large amount of heat was brought up, and release high in the sky. But yet, the atmosphere tens of kilometers above the ground is EXTREMELY COLD. How could it happen. Where does the heat go? Clearly the heat can not be dissipated by air convection: The air is becoming ever more thin the higher you go so the heat can't be brought further up. The ground is hotter so the heat really can't be released back to the ground. For all the heat that's being continuously brought up in the high air, there is only one place for them to go: Radiation into the deep space.

Here, the so called green house gas actually played the opposite role. The high air is at sub-zero temperature so it could not radiate in short wavelengths like visible light. It can only radiate in long wavelengths. But the only gases that can radiate in long wavelengths are also the gases that absorb such wavelengths, i.e., green house gases.

So, the matter of the fact is the green house gases not only does NOT trap heat on the ground. It actually HELPS to keep the ground cool by actively radiate away the large amount of heat brought up to the high air by ground water evaporation and air circulation. The high air is a heat sink that sucks heat away from the ground. And the green house gases keep that heat sink cold so it can continue to suck heat away from the ground. Green house gases cause global cooling, not global warming!!!


At 11:51 AM, Anonymous Jousia said...

So, why The Earth is warming up when - according to you - it should be getting colder?

At 12:55 PM, Anonymous Jousia said...

You say the earth has experienced atmospheric CO2 density many orders of magnitude higher than now.

Yes, you are talking about pre-mammal era. Say, how was the weather back then?

Human actions have raised CO2 level now 30% above the flux range that has been for millions of years.

You say: "...if we burn all of our fossil fuels, we are still far away from have an atmospheric CO2 level that is high enough to be of any concern."

So now high CO2 level is a concern after all?
How high level would be a concern then?

Greenhouse effect is the base of life on Earth. Without it the temperature would be too low for life.
Moon and Mars have no atmosphere, so they are pretty cold places.

Btw, climate change won't destroy human not to mention life on Earth. That's large scale exaggeration.

At 11:02 AM, Anonymous Dr Motl is the real crackpot said...


Since Quantoken is too busy at Motl's blog, I will try to reply instead.

When CO2 levels increase, trees grow faster in the tropics and plankton grows in the oceans.

The same people who complain about rising CO2 usually complain about declining rainforests and declining sealife.

But the increase in CO2 will eventually enhance the growth rate of plants, as will the rising temperature.

So there is a natural feedback on a planet with life, like this one.

When the rainforests have expanded a lot in say 100 years or whatever after the rise in CO2, then the will consume more CO2 to produce wood than human activity produces, so CO2 levels will then fall.

The people who say that CO2 levels will rise endlessly are ignoring the natural feedback mechanism. OK, there will be a period lasting about a century when things will be hotter, but when vegetation on land and in the sea has expanded naturally by an amount sufficient to soak up the CO2, the CO2 level will start falling and temperatures will plummet.

In the brief 100 year interval of higher temperatures, there will be some bad weather since the number of hurricanes each month is proportional to (T - 27)^2.3, where T is the nearby sea temperature in C.

There will also be some flooding due to bad weather and to the melting of polar ice which will cause sea levels to rise.

But what is going to be a bigger problem even than that is the fact that oil will run out, or the price will increase to the point where only the extremely rich will be able to afford to travel, or use large amounts of energy.

So people will have to depend on solar cells and nuclear power more, and use bicycles. Aircraft use a lot of gasoline, so the era of cheap flights will end, and people will become closed off again, like it was in medieval times when only the super rich (or military) would travel far.

This is a bigger problem, because once oil has gone it is takes geological time to make more, millions of years. So people will have to rely on electric power, and for cars that means short ranges, because batteries can't pack in anything like the energy density you get from gasoline.

At 12:47 PM, Anonymous Peter Wait said...


Do you know anything about http://lubos-motl.blogspot.com? Is it true that the other version of the blog is false?


At 6:26 PM, Blogger Quantoken said...


I have no comment on http://lubos-motl.blogspot.com. I know that one no more than you do. This blog you see here is the real Cosmic Variance Blog, if you see something of similar name, it must be a fakery, or maybe even a DOT COM business. Clearly the only string those folks know are noodles, beef noodles, to be exact.

At 1:52 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're a moron.

At 9:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Its a HUGE coincidence that temperatures have risen at the same time with pollution...
even if the planet compensates for it why should it have to...?
why continue to take that massive risk if we are going to have to confront the issue of running out of oil anyway...
its insanity...
why find a millions to justify sticking with oil and not going clean if it runs out shortly afterwards...mean while risking our futures...
ditch it now and leave ourselves time to adapt to the changes...

At 9:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

a million ways i mean...

At 2:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

elementary school physics? contradictions and illogical conclusions. not to mention the obvious lack of correct grammar. you know more than the world's preeminent scientists, with phds and years of study and knowledge. yeah right. wacko!

At 2:15 PM, Blogger dwight said...

I have been searching for the reason(s) that co2 and other "so called" greenhouse gases could cause global warming.
The long and short wave radiation has answered that question for me. So it seems that the global warming advocates only want to use half of the short and long wave calculations. The fact that cold temperatures reverse the way co2 blocks and convects must be inconvienient to them. So it gets ignored. Curious.
Information is available that shows co2 was about 270 ppm in 1850 and about 360 ppm in the late 90's. I for one love to run the numbers. At 270 ppm co2 represented about .00027% of the atmosphere. At 360 ppm the ratio rises to .00036%. This calculates to an increase of co2 percentage a "staggering" .00001%.
Considering the fact that about 3000 times this amount would be required to significantly reflect/deflect radiant heat, if we continue at this pace, in a short 2 million years our globe will be an unbearable 3 degrees hotter. We better all sell our beach front property and soon. Well, maybe not so soon.
I noted with interest how several responders to Quantoken's post had to resort to name calling and degradation. If any scientific expalnations that he had given were wrong, would the deliniation of them not be better than grammer school "sounding"?

At 3:10 PM, Blogger dwight said...

To Anonym....
I read your post concerning the how temperatures have risen in conjunction with pollution.
Did you know that scientific data show that co2 levels actually lag higher global temperatures and not the other way around? It's true. Sometimes, by as much as 100 years. Al Gore's chart showed this but he chooses not to note it in his film.
So, there is no proof co2 raises temperatures on a global scale and one may decide that higher temperatures do not increase co2 levels, but certainly the data show that the latter is a possiblity.

At 3:15 AM, Blogger Samphire said...

Dwight wrote "Information is available that shows co2 was about 270 ppm in 1850 and about 360 ppm in the late 90's. I for one love to run the numbers. At 270 ppm co2 represented about .00027% of the atmosphere. At 360 ppm the ratio rises to .00036%. This calculates to an increase of co2 percentage a "staggering" .00001%."

You may like to "run the numbers" but you don't seem to have much mathematical ability. An increase from 270 ppm to 360 ppm is 33.3' % and not 0.00001%

And Cosmic's maths are not cosmic either:

"So 200 degree divided by 3x10^5 times = 0.00007 degrees"

No. 200/(3 x 10^5) is 0.0007 degrees. Still not a huge rise, admittedly, but if you are going to prove your case by maths you should try to get the maths correct.

Strange though, isn't it, that bad as Cosmic's maths are, those of climate scientists are even worse - according to Cosmic, anyway?

At 1:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The AGW theory couldn´t be 100% proven, due to quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle, and quantum fluctuations, as well as, if true, it´s not, solved by socialism, i.e. Cap and Trade, with a total world price tag of $145 trillion.

Say No To Climategate!!!

At 5:52 AM, Anonymous What causes global warming? said...

I do agree that some logic is missing. The green house effect is a minor subject that has become well known and published in the media, and now people are afraid to use anything that exhails CO2 to the open air.

At 8:58 AM, Anonymous Elliott Broidy said...

great info


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home