Gary Novak on Global Warming
Copyright 2007 by Gary Novak
It exists, but not due to greenhouse gases.
- The atmosphere is only 0.04% carbon dioxide, of which only 3% stems from human activity. Therefore, human activity cannot create global warming stemming from carbon dioxide, though natural causes of global warming certainly can exist. (Explanation)*
- The oceans regulate CO2 in the atmosphere to the minutest detail, as indicated by an El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, which causes CO2 measurements in the air to increase, and then they renormalize when the El Nino disappears.
- The oceans are heating up drastically, and the atmosphere only slightly, as indicated by polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. This points to a hot spot in the earth’s core heating the oceans, not human activity. See Ice Age Theory.
- Twenty thousand scientists signed a petition saying carbon dioxide is not creating global warming (link at bottom of page).
- Why are many of the “top scientists” saying humans create global warming? They got into the game after the consensus was supposedly established (by the media and propagandists). They weren’t good enough scientists to look at the starting point and see the errors. They assumed it was already worked out. They are go-along scientists, just like the promoters of relativity, who were propagandized from K-12 on and never questioned the origins of the assumptions.
Global warming is occurring due to oceans heating, not greenhouse gases. The oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth’s core, which is the cause of ice ages.
Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air, as indicated by the chemistry and the stability over time at extremely low levels. Otherwise there would a large amount in the air, and it would fluctuate drastically (like smog does).
Principles of chemistry indicate that regulation by oceans must be absolute. CO2 disolving in water establishes an equilibrium. Equilibrium means absolute regulation.
Production and sequestration of CO2 are totally irrelevant, because they do not regulate. They would leave excessive and highly varied amounts in the air, if oceans were not regulating.
The effect of so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is extremely minuscule.
- Only around 380 parts per million of the atmosphere is carbon dioxide.
- Only 3% of the CO2 results from human activity.
- Only about 2-5% of the infrared radiation can be absorbed by a greenhouse gas, as shown by the IR absorption spectrum, which consists of a narrow band of frequencies.
- The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not determined by production, because it is regulated by the oceans. Cold oceans absorbs more, and warm oceans release more back into the atmosphere.
- The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century indicates oceans heating (due to other causes), and it is too minuscule to be relevant. It is an indicator, not cause, of oceans heating.
- Air has a much lower heat capacity than water, which means oceans can heat the air, but the air cannot significantly heat the oceans.
- Water in the air is a greenhouse gas which swamps the others. It is about a hundred times more prevalent than CO2 in clear air, and millions of times more significant on a cloudy day. Yet moisture only changes temperatures about 10-20 degrees on a cloudy day. This means CO2 must be changing temperatures less than 0.000001 degrees all of the time.
- When el Nino heats the Pacific, CO2 increases in the atmosphere; and after El Nino, it normalizes. It wouldn’t normalize if oceans were not reabsorbing the CO2. And if oceans can reabsorb that CO2, they can absorb any other CO2.
- Plants desperately need more CO2 to grow on. Their growth increases substantially when more CO2 is provided. The oceans had to be large to aquify the planet, but then they absorbed too much CO2 for good plant growth.
Water vapor is a a greenhouse gas which is far more significant than carbon dioxide, because there is about a hundred times as much of it in the air, depending upon humidity. Its primary effect is to reflect radiation. It produces a highly varied effect which swamps the significance of carbon dioxide.
Since carbon dioxide absorbs and re-emits radiation, rather than reflects it, the radiation is sent in all directions, and only a small percent would be sent back towards the earth. Also, only a very narrow band of wavelengths is absorbed by CO2.
Compare the numbers to water vapor. There’s less than 1% as many molecules of CO2; it absorbs less than 1% of the radiation; and it sends less than 10% back to earth. That’s 100 x 100 x 10 times less effective than water vapor, which totals one million times less effective. If a cloudy day changes the temperature by 10 degrees, carbon dioxide would be a millionth as effective, which would be 0.00001 degrees. The quantities are absurd.
Concerning carbon dioxide, the amount in the air is unrelated to the amount produced. Ocean temperatures determine how much is in the air. An equilibrium is created at the ocean surface, and it regulates the amount in the air. So if there is more carbon dioxide in the air, it means ocean surfaces are warming.
Propagandists sometimes claim that the oceans are not absorbing the CO2 that humans create. If not, then the oceans are not in equilibrium. If the oceans are not in equilibrium, humans are in big trouble, because there is 200 times as much CO2 in the surface oceans and 7,000 times as much in the deep oceans compared to the amount humans produce. A nonsteady state for such large quantities would swamp the atmospheric effects. The fact that there is so little variation in atmospheric CO2 over the centuries demonstrates that it is regulated. And most importantly, the science of the subject states that absorption of gases by liquids is controlled by concentrations and achieves a steady state.
Then there is the implication that whatever oceans do, it is not fast enough to keep up with human activity. The yearly exchange rate is said to be 16 times the amount humans produce. This means all of the CO2 humans produce in one year could be absorbed by the oceans in 23 days (while it has 365 days to do it).
A point about global warming is not being mentioned by either side. It is the fact that only the air temperature is being measured. But air has a very low heat capacity, and it is a very small percent of the surface mass of the earth. To determine global warming, temperatures should be measured for the water, rocks and soil—not the atmosphere.
The promoters of the issue use a computer model to determine the temperature of the atmosphere, since it cannot be directly measured over such a large three dimensional volume. They claim there has been less than one degree increase over the past century. Satellite measurements show a decrease in atmospheric temperature, which is probably due to increased cloud cover reflecting away solar energy. The satellite measurements are more reliable than the computer models.
The polar ice caps are melting, but water temperature is the primary cause. Another indication of water temperatures increasing is increased rainfall in the upper plains over the past twenty years. The humid air originates in the Pacific Ocean, which must be getting warmer.
The cause of the oceans warming cannot be the atmosphere, which has very low heat capacity, but must be due to heat from within the earth’s core, as described on other pages dealing with climate and the earth’s core.
The globe is heating, but the cause is hot spots rotating in the earth’s core and heating the oceans, not greenhouse gases. This can be known from the fact that the past ten ice ages have cycled at 100 thousand year intervals. Environmental factors would not be so cyclic.
There are numerous indications of the oceans heating up. One is increased rainfall in the upper plains, where the moisture originates in the Pacific Ocean. A few years ago, Chicago was flooding due to a rise in Lake Michigan; and another canal had to be built around Niagara Falls to drain it.
It is known that underground temperatures are increasing, as indicated by ice melting on Minnesota lakes during cold temperatures last winter.
Change in intensity of the sun’s energy is not indicated as the cause of oceans heating, because such would heat land and air more than oceans, while satellite measurements indicate atmospheric cool-down, which would be due to increased cloud cover.
For these reasons, to claim humans must reduce carbon dioxide emissions is about like saying the outdoors must be heated during the winter.
Even though most scientists do not agree that so-called greenhouse gases create global warming, journalists get their stories from the minority and claim there is no question about it. One reason is because the minority opinions come from the government and UN; and the journalists have the same motive, which is to promote population control.
The promotion of propaganda on greenhouse gases is an attempt to justify population control without scientific credibility. This is known because the propagandists link global warming to population control.
The driving force behind the claim that humans are responsible for global warming is that atheists are using it as a new form of environmentalism, since all other forms got extremely stale. Ten years ago, they were directly linking global warming to population control. Since then, a more serious concern has developed. If an ice age is starting, and it should be, atheists are big losers on all fronts. So they are trying to convince people that there is nothing natural about the present form of global warming.
Fraud at Every Turn
Look at how this subject is explained on the web site of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
It says this:
The “greenhouse effect” refers to the natural phenomenon that keeps the Earth in a temperature range that allows life to flourish. The sun’s enormous energy warms the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere. As this energy radiates back toward space as heat, a portion is absorbed by a delicate balance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—among them carbon dioxide and methane—which creates an insulating layer. With the temperature control of the greenhouse effect, the Earth has an average surface temperature of 59°F (15°C). Without it, the average surface temperature would be 0°F (-18°C),—
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.—we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the air. Related link: Global Warming FAQ
Now read the same thing described more honestly:
The “greenhouse effect” refers to the natural phenomenon that keeps the Earth in a temperature range that allows life to flourish. The sun’s enormous energy warms the Earth’s surface and its atmosphere. As this energy radiates back toward space as heat, a portion is absorbed by the atmosphere, which consists of nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), water vapor
(1-3%), carbon dioxide (0.04%) and traces of other similar substances, which creates an insulating layer. With the temperature control of the greenhouse effect, the Earth has an average surface temperature of 59°F (15°C). Without it, the average surface temperature would be 0°F (-18°C),—
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.—we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the air.
They pulled a switcharoo in their description. It is the total atmosphere which heats the planet 59 degrees, while they say a “delicate balance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—among them carbon dioxide and methane—which creates an insulating layer.”
There is always a word game involved in the rationalizations. They said “a portion is absorbed by a delicate balance…” The heat is absorbed by molecules. A delicate balance is an abstract relationship which doesn’t absorb anything.
“Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3). Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (3).”
*Explanation: For several years, both sides agreed that only 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere was of human origins. But recently, wild versions have replaced the 3% figure. There is more propaganda and fraud than science in this subject. But the 3% figure looks realistic to me, because all biology gets recycled every few years, and it is largely carbon.
But I want to emphasize that this point is not very relavent for two major reasons. 1.) The oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. As a laboratory scientist, I see how CO2 moves into and out of solutions from the air. It is a controlled process. 2.) Everything in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas including the oxygen, nitrogen and wator vapor. Wator vapor is extremely variable, and it totally swamps any possible effect by CO2.
CO2 is effect of global warming, not cause. It increases when the oceans warm and release more.
- Scientists oppose Kyoto Protocol
- Interview of Fred Singer
- Fred Singer’s Web Site
- Scientists’ Review of Literature
- Temperature Measurements
- CO2 Science Org
- El Nino and CO2
There are too many strokes of luck in design of the globe to attribute them to the big bang. Intellignet design is the only explanation.
Oceans are a visible example. As explained on the “global warming” page, oceans regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Cold oceans absorb more, and warm oceans release more.
The oceans had to be very large to create sufficient rainfall. The problem is, large oceans absorb too much CO2 which is needed by plants. Reducing the ocean size in half still would not produce enough CO2 for good plant growth, while the environment would be mostly desert.
So the oceans had to be designed for rainfall, while the biochemistry of photosynthesis had to adapt to extremely low levels of CO2.
However, there was a partial fix. Adding salt to the oceans would cause them to release more CO2 into the atmosphere. It would be bad for the fish but good for the plants. So the fish had to adapt to salt water to allow plants to get some CO2.
There is another complexity involved. Warmer oceans release more CO2 than colder oceans. So why not just make the oceans warmer? The answer is that they were warmer a billion years ago, but they have been cooling down since.
A billion years ago, all continental plates were combined into one large land mass. There were no mountains, because the plates were thin. They just stuck together instead of buckling.
There was more heat being liberated by the earth’s core when tectonic plates were thin. This means oceans were warmer. And in turn, this means there was more rainfall.
The vegetation at that time consisted of nonwoody plants. Think of them as over-sized rhubarb. They thrived on high rainfall. In fact, it was heavy vegetation that caused dinosaurs to get large. Heavy mass was needed to plow through vegetation.
Now the tectonic plates are much thicker. This means there is less heat being conducted from the earth’s core into the oceans, which means colder oceans, and which means less rainfall everywhere.
So another contradiction is that warmer oceans require a thinner mantle on the earth. It occurred during the dinosaur years and earlier, but now a more arid and mountainous ecology exists.
It is not known why the earth’s core is hot, but there are lines of evidence. The changing thickness of the earth’s crust indicates a constant cooling, which indicates that the heat was created at the beginning of the earth’s formation.
About a billion years ago, all of the continents had come together forming a large super continent called Pangea. There were no mountains at that time. An “ice age” caused the whole land mass to be covered with ice, which destroyed all terrestrial life. After the ice melted, terrestrial life reevolved from the sea creatures.
The absence of mountains means the tectonic plates were very thin and light. If they were as thick and heavy as modern plates, they would have buckled and slid over and under each other as they collided to form Pangea, and mountains would have been the result. Since the plates were thin and light, they just welded together as they collided.
For example, a significant earthquake occurred in central South Dakota in 1983. Earthquakes were supposed to be impossible in the area, because there is supposedly one continuous sheet of granite under the entire state. Earth quakes are caused by two plates sliding past each other. It means there are two plates which fit together so precisely that they look like one. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that there are two very distinct soil types above each plate. Loam sits over the east river plate, and a heavy gumbo sits over the west river plate.
So the tectonic plates were thin and light in earlier times, and now they are getting thick and heavy. This means the earth is losing heat, and the heat in the earth’s core must have been there at the beginning of the earth’s creation. The heat apparently resulted from small particles gravitating toward a center, and the process of colliding and compressing created heat through friction.
Additional evidence is in the observation that planets which are farther away from the sun are losing heat faster than they are acquiring it from the sun. They apparently acquired their heat during their creation.
Heat in the core of planets cannot be entirely due to nuclear reactions, because that source would require a gradual build-up rather than a gradual loss of heat. However, nuclear reactions could be occurring in the core, because heat and pressure should promote them. But then they must be producing heat at a lower rate than it is being lost through radiation into space. Otherwise, there would not be the observed cool-down.
It seems likely that ice ages on earth are caused by a nuclear hot spot in the core rotating toward the surface and heating the Pacific Ocean. The primary evidence for this is that the past ten ice ages have been cycling at 100 thousand year intervals. Environmental changes are not apt to be so cyclic, but a convectional oscillation in the earth’s core could be.
It’s quite significant that a large number of coral reefs are dying from over-heating. Humans are not causing the oceans to over-heat; it appears to be caused by heat from the earth’s core.
All articles are Copyright by Gary Novak: http://nov55.com/
All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission
Related Links and Resources
- Scientist: Global warming is near its tipping point – Tim Flannery, author of The Weather Makers, cites string of evidences to Salt Lake City audience and calls for a reasonable and doable change of human behavior. (Salt Lake Tribune; Apr. 9, 2006)
- What’s Up with the Weather: Global Warming – PBS’ NOVA/Frontline educational site addresses the debate, evidence in the ice, what would be submerged, fossil fuel alternatives
- Global Warming – CBS News‘ interactive covers the greenhouse effect, discoveries and global action, Kyoto Protocol; charts and maps of CO2 emissions; history of Earth’s climate; growing danger.
- Studies of ancient climates suggest Earth is now on a fast track to global warming – Human activities are releasing greenhouse gases more than 30 times faster than the rate of emissions that triggered a period of extreme global warming in the Earth’s past, according to an expert on ancient climates. (PhysOrg; Feb. 17, 2006)
- All you ever wanted to know about Global Warming – Frequently Asked Questions – Introduction to global warming, from New Scientist magazine. Includes theories about positive and negative feedbacks.
- Scientists urged to spread word on global warming – Global warming is real, dangerous and ignored at great risk to the planet, says. Professor James Gustave Speth, Dean of Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, urging the scientific community to make its case to the public, which remains unconvinced of the crisis despite decades of first-rate science and policy analysis. (PhysOrg; April 12, 2005)
- Consensus on Global Warming – Science Magazine analyzed the last ten years of published scientific articles on the subject of global climate change. Of the 928 papers, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities. 25% made no mention either way. Not a single paper asserted otherwise.” (Slashdot; Dec. 8, 2004)
- Global Warming consequences heads list of year’s top 100 discoveries – Global warming topped the 2004 list compiled by Discover magazine’s Year in Science issue, Jan. 2005. (PhysOrg; Dec. 13, 2004)
- Shutdown of circulation pattern could be disastrous – Researches predict that if global warming shuts down the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean, the result could be catastrophic climate change. (PhysOrg; Dec. 13, 2004)