Argument Against Man Made Global Warming

0
149

This is an argument against the hypothesis that man made carbon dioxide emissions and other so-called green house gases are directly causing a rise in global temperature referred to as man made climate change or global warming. The hypothesis states that greenhouse gases such as CARBON DIOXIDE are absorbing infrared radiation being released by the Earth and reemitting this radiation back towards Earth resulting in a rise of temperature. This hypothesis has gained wide acceptance due to the correlation between the rise in temperature and atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE concentration. But, as would be pointed out that things are not always as they seem. This graph is a plot of temperature departure as a function of CARBON DIOXIDE concentration in the atmosphere. Even though there is a trend between global temperature departure and CARBON DIOXIDE concentration in the atmosphere, that does not necessarily mean temperature is a function of the CARBON DIOXIDE concentration. Instead, as it will be explained later, the CARBON DIOXIDE concentration is a function of the temperature and not the other way around.

This graph is the CARBON DIOXIDE concentration and temperature departure by year where the blue line is CARBON DIOXIDE concentration and the pink line is temperature departure. Notice that there was an unusual spike in temperature between the years 1937 to 1947 whereas the CARBON DIOXIDE concentration was relatively stable. If CARBON DIOXIDE concentration is the only factor then how does one explain this spike in temperature? Although data is presented in such a way that attempts to hide this fact. This table comes from the transcript of the latest State of the Union address posted on a page managed by the White House. Notice that emphasis is taken away from the temperature spike between the years 1937 to 1947 by having a bar graph of temperatures initiating at the 57° Celsius mark. Instead of a spike being prevalent, data was manipulated to give the appearance that little activity was going on during this time.

There is a much more scientific basis to suggest that the rise in CARBON DIOXIDE concentration in the atmosphere is caused by a rise in temperature rather than the other way around. This is because the solubility of a gas in a liquid decreases as there is and increase in temperature which is the exact opposite one would expect for a solid dissolved in a liquid. When dissolving a solid in a liquid, an increase in temperature tends to increase the solubility of the substance in solution. As the momentum and frequency that a water molecule can collide with a salt increases there is a higher tendency for the total quantity of a substance dissolved in a liquid to increase. With a gas dissolved in a liquid, the opposite effect is observed with regards to temperature. As the kinetic energy of a liquid increases with an increase in temperature, the tendency for a gas molecule to escape also increases. As can be seen in this graph, the change in amount of CARBON DIOXIDE dissolved in water can be quite dramatic.

The vast majority of the metrological CARBON DIOXIDE actually resides in the oceans. Taking the total quantity of CARBON DIOXIDE between the atmosphere and the oceans, approximately 2% of the CARBON DIOXIDE is in the atmosphere whereas 98% resides in the oceans. It is also worth mentioning that the carbon within the CARBON DIOXIDE in the atmosphere and oceans is approximately 190 times greater than the carbon contained in all proven oil reserves on the planet and considering the earths biomass makes this ratio between natural carbon and fossil fuel carbon to be even greater. Although it has been claimed that there is a rise in CARBON DIOXIDE concentration in the world’s oceans resulting in an increase in ocean acidity. It can be true there has been in increase in the Oceans surface waters but it is impossible that there has been an increase in both atmospheric and oceanic CARBON DIOXIDE concentrations based on the fact that there are not enough fossil fuels being consumed to cause this type of increase. The majority of the CARBON DIOXIDE that is evolved from the ocean is captured by rainwater and brought back into the ocean.

Typically rainwater falls to the Earth at a pH of 6 due to the dissolved CARBON DIOXIDE within a rain drop. And since there is very little mixing of the Earths Oceans, there can be an accumulation of CARBON DIOXIDE in the surface waters causing this measured rise in pH. So it is not that there is an increase in the CARBON DIOXIDE concentration within the ocean but rather an increase in temperature is resulting in a greater concentration differential between the surface waters and the deep ocean. Now that we have determined the balance of CARBON DIOXIDE is much different than what is being claimed by falsely so-called “world top scientists” lets now look at the claim that CARBON DIOXIDE functions as a greenhouse gas. Although the term “green house gas” will not be used to describe carbon dioxide since using such a term eludes that there is a greenhouse effect which is not the case.

Instead CARBON DIOXIDE will be classified, as it should, as an infrared active molecule or an I R active molecule. Due to the CARBON DIOXIDE molecules ability to gain a dipole moment from asymmetrical bond stretching and angle bending, CARBON DIOXIDE does absorb and reemit infrared radiation. Although there is another molecule in our atmosphere which is I R active and is far more prevalent in our atmosphere than CARBON DIOXIDE and that is water vapor. The average concentration of water in the atmosphere can be as high as 3% which is 77 times greater than the CARBON DIOXIDE concentration in the atmosphere, and water vapor actually does a better job at absorbing and reemitting the Earth’s thermal radiation leaving the planet. So assuming that the claim that CARBON DIOXIDE is a greenhouse gas, that will mean that water vapor has a far greater effect on the Earth’s temperature than CARBON DIOXIDE. And, this not even considering that water droplets and ice particles in the atmosphere have an even greater infrared absorbance than that of water vapor.

So assuming that water vapor is a greenhouse gas at the same strength as CARBON DIOXIDE (even though it is greater) that will mean that water vapor will heat the Earth resulting in more water being evaporated until the Oceans are a boiling caldron and all water will enter into the atmosphere. In such a case the resulting temperature of the atmosphere will be well beyond 212° Fahrenheit (the boiling point of water under standard conditions) since the atmospheric pressure will also be much greater due to the greater quantity of gas in the atmosphere. Since this is not the case, the claim that atmospheric CARBON DIOXIDE is causing a rise in temperature can be counted as false. So with that said, it begs the question on what is actually causing a rise in temperature? And the answer is very simple: the Sun, but it is actually a little bit more complicated than that.

The luminous flux from the Sun remains constant so this is not a factor but the electromagnetic flux is not constant and this is the cause of the temperature rise. The Earth also exhibits an electromagnetic field known as the ionosphere which is an important characteristic of our planet. Without the ionosphere, our planet will be at the mercy of the solar winds which would very quickly strip away our atmosphere. This ionosphere is actually induced by the Sun’s electromagnetic field interacting with the core of the Earth. Take for instance the planet Mars, its core currently does not interact with the Sun’s electromagnetic field and as a result Mars’ atmospheric pressure is about 4.5 mm of Mercury whereas Earth’s standard atmospheric pressure is 760 mm of Mercury. Since the magnitude of the Sun’s Electromagnetic field changes, and that the Earth is travelling through the Sun’s electromagnetic field as it orbits the Sun and travels closer to and away from the Sun as it travels in an elliptical orbit, the Sun’s electromagnetic field has a heating effect on the core of the Earth. In a recent study it was determined that 70% of the heat generated within the core of the Earth cannot be accounted for.

Well as per my assertion, it is caused by the core of the Earth interacting with the electromagnetic field of the Sun. The remaining 30% of the heat generated is from nuclear decay which is probably exasperated by heating from the Sun’s electromagnetic field. There is another planet in our Solar system that shows signs of internal heating which is far more prevalent than our own and that is the planet Venus. The geochemistry of Venus is very different than that of Earth. Because of the chemical makeup of Venus, it makes it very difficult for fault lines to form so heat cannot dissipate at a continuous rate. Instead, massive blisters form on the surface of Venus periodically where generated heat can escape.

So as previously stated, heat generated within the Earth escapes primarily through fault lines and also through volcanic activity. Take for instance Greenland; it has been determined recently that Greenland’s ice has been melting not by heat coming from above but from underneath. So it is the heat that is generated within the Earth that is causing this ice to melt and not from man made climate change. Also because heat is being dissipated primarily through fault lines this is also a possible explanation in the increase in earthquakes within the last 40 years. As the material along a fault line becomes hotter it also becomes more malleable and this increases the probability that stored energy will be rapidly released in the form of an earthquake. The Volcanic Expolsivity Index also shows a similar trend. There has been correlations drawn between the amount of sun spots and the temperature of the Earth; both of which are caused by a change in the Electromagnetic Flux from the Sun. As you can see, a moving average of the amount of sunspots does fall in line with the increase in temperature that we have been experiencing in recent years.

Of course, like most things, it is not a linear relationship. So in summary, the presence of sun spots, the Earth’s heat generation, the increase in seismic and volcanic activity, and the observable phenomena on the planets Venus and Mars all agree with the hypothesis that changes in the electromagnetic flux from the Sun is causing a rise in temperature. So now I think it will be a good time to discuss weather patterns. The primary cause of our weather patterns is due to the Coriolis Effect and temperature is a secondary factor. But there is a much stronger secondary factor that is often overlooked. Recently NASA has put together a simulation with a system of models known as GEOS-5. The result of this simulation showed that aerosols play a significant factor in changing weather patterns even in the formation of tropical cyclones. The reason for this being that different aerosols in the atmosphere change the average density of the air thereby affecting how momentum is exchanged.

These aerosols include black & organic carbon, dust, sulfates, and sea salt. So it is well known that (quote) “climate change” has very little to do with a temperature departure of 0.7° Celsius and more to do with aerosols manipulating the momentum exchange. So why is the concept of man made climate change being perpetuated even though there is so much information out there that logically refutes its claim? Well the climate change debate is big business. So far the equivalent of 1 trillion U.S. Dollars has been dumped into research into studying man made global warming. Do you think Universities, professors, and research organizations will easily allow a good theory to affect there research grants and reputation? Also consider Environmental Companies, Government Agencies, and Political Parties also need to keep this farce going to promote their vetted interests. Also, were you aware that its possible to turn a profit on the derivative market by knowing what the weather will be? Its true, weather derivatives are big business and the ability to foresee these risks will give someone a great competitive advantage on the stock exchange.

So if it is possible to predict what the weather will be; do you think that this information will be publically disclosed considering the financial advantage of being able to make these predictions? As a society we should be vigilant against possible natural occurrences that pose a threat to the world’s population and how to plan accordingly or even mitigate the problem. Such events can include predicting a sudden rise in sea level, the possibility of the earth colliding with an asteroid or comet, predicting cataclysmic earthquakes and is my opinion that such earthquakes can be initiated from additional heat escaping through fault lines, solar flares or other bursts of energy originating from outer space, or even predicting and managing the world’s weather patterns through the monitoring and control of aerosols in the atmosphere.

Of course global warming caused by CARBON DIOXIDE emissions could be part of this global risk management plan but with time it will be seen the global warming is not caused by these emissions. Rather that global temperature is a function of the electromagnetic flux from the Sun and weathers patterns are due to the density and quantity of aerosols in the atmosphere..

NO COMMENTS