Global Warming – Does Mankind Have a Responsibility?
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2008
by Bill Dulude
A primary issue that has the world's attention is what Al Gore calls an Inconvenient Truth global warming. He has published an impressive book that catalogs photographs of what has been occurring as a consequence of global warming, warming he, and many others, attributes to mankind's production of heat trapping gases, primarily water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ).
Allow me to enumerate what I consider discrepancies in the belief that greenhouse gases have been causing, and continues to cause, global warming.
Science tells us heat is the random activity of molecules and atoms and the degree of activity is directly related to the amount of heat experienced by those molecular structures. Temperature, then, is really a measure of molecular activity. The more heat the greater the molecular activity and lesser heat results in decreased molecular activity. Theory has it that at absolute zero all molecular activity comes to a standstill. Absolute zero being 0 o K or -273.15 o C or -459.67 o F. Thus for a substance/material to receive and/or exhibit heat it must have molecular structure. We observe heat tends to seek a common level. If one heats a pot of water on a stove and then sets it aside on a cooler surface, the pot of water will eventually reach the same temperature as its surrounding environment. The atmosphere or air that supports our existence has molecular structure and as such has the ability to receive and retain heat. We're told this envelope of air extends beyond the earth about 340 miles, thinning as the altitude increases and for practical matters becomes non-existent at about 340 miles in altitude. The earth basically receives its heat through infrared and ultraviolet rays radiating from the sun. The earth's molecular structure receives and absorbs that heat and shares that heat with all elements of molecular structure within its proximity. Outer space lacks molecular structure and therefore cannot receive heat, and as such heat cannot be retained beyond the earth's atmosphere. Thus heat received from the sun remains within the earth's environment.
Let's talk a little bit about CO 2 . I understand Dry Ice is a trademark for CO 2 in its solid state; it is a dense, snow like substance that sublimes (passes directly into vapor without melting) at -109.3 F and it is used as a refrigerant for the shipping of perishable products such as meats and/or ice cream. In the production of Dry Ice , advantage is taken of the spontaneous cooling that occurs when liquefied CO 2 is compressed at -71 F or lower. When CO 2 is then allowed to suddenly expand to atmospheric pressure, the liquid freezes forming the finely divided solid called Dry Ice. Again what are the heat trapping properties of CO 2 ?
The February/March 1, 2004 issue of US News & World Report magazine contained an article that talked about 10,000 year old human campsites being discovered 300 to 400 feet below the current sea level. The article also suggested there was at one time a land bridge across the Bering Straight, which was used by inhabitants from Eastern Asia to migrate to the Americas. From that information can we not deduce that the oceans have been raising approximately 3 to 4 hundreds of a foot annually over the past 10,000 years ocean rise numbers consistent with what is being observed today.
NASA tells us the oceans cover almost three-quarters of the Earth. They say if all the existing ice glaciers and ice sheets melted, the sea level would rise by about 260 feet - about the height of a 26-story building. I assume the 260-foot rise number is based on the existing ocean footprint if the footprint increases the rise will be something less than the 260 feet. Additionally they say that 18,000 years ago huge ice sheets once covered large areas of North America and Europe. In fact, they say the ice extended as far south as New York and the Ohio River Valley. If that is true - we should be able to readily understand why oceans have risen over time as indicated above and realize mankind has had no participation in the disappearance of those ice sheets.
The scientific community should be asked to step up to the plate and explain these discrepancies.
This Article has been viewed 765 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)Hi Bill; First let me say that I am on your side in this. I do not believe for one instant that man made gases are influencing the global temperature to any measurable degree. But CO2 does absorb a certain amount of heat, more in fact than water. But the infinitesimal amount that man is putting into the atmosphere would in no way increase global warming. CO2, (a compound of one part carbon and two parts water) was used extrensively as a refrigerant due to it's low evaporation point temperature and absorbs large amounts of heat. But let's explain the cooling power of water since I have figures on it) A one pound piece of ice at a temperature of 40 degrees below zero F will absorb 36.3 BTU of heat to bring it to 32 degrees above zero F. But it takes 144 more BTUs of heat to convert this ice into 32 degree liquid without raising it's temperature one bit. Then it requires 180 BTUs to raise the water temperature to 212 degrees F. But then, it takes a whopping 970 BTUs to change it into 212 degree vapor! So water vapor as well as CO2 molecules do absorb and hold heat, however, water vapor is out of our hands and so is the vast majority of CO2 production. But CO2 is a very minor element in our atmosphere, all total, not enough to be concerned about as far as heat absorptions. Not many are seeking to resolve this problem. Most want to milk it for ever grant dollar they can. CO2 is a naturally occurring part of our atmosphere, it is not a pollutant. Pollutants are soot, ashes toxic fumes, etc. And, any vapor..water, CO2 or whatever, will only absorb limited amounts of heat since they are already in a gaseous state and like any other substance, absorbs or expels heat depending upon the ambient temperature since heat tends to equalize with surroundings. A good article, keep writing.Joel: I appreciate your comments to my article, thank you. I'm an old retired engineer who relies considerably on what I observe. So being the dummy that I am I observe the following: CO 2 and water both have the ability to capture heat the same as any other substance on earth, but do they retain that heat? If heat is applied to one pound of ice to the extent that it eventually becomes steam and if that steam is captured into a container and that container is allowed to sit for a time, eventually that steam will again become water and the atmosphere surrounding that container will be a little warmer. This occurs through the laws of heat transfer - namely conduction and convection. If, through whatever means, heat is taken away from that water it will again eventually become ice. CO 2 in its solid state will also absorb heat. What I don't understand is what makes these two substances so different from any other substance? I observe all molecular structure substances will transfer heat according to the laws of heat transfer until a common level of heat is reached and the density of each substance dictates the rate at which heat will transfer. I believe the world is wasting a lot of time, effort and resources to solve an irresolvable problem they're chasing their tail.You have it right on the button...Joel
This is an old article so I don't expect any response – I just feel about half of it is irrelevant...The idea of the enhanced greenhouse effect has nothing to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide itself storing any heat whatsoever. This article seems to forget that heat can be transmitted by radiation - that's how it can travel through space from the Sun to Earth. About 45% of incoming solar radiation is able to pass through the atmosphere and heat the Earth (the rest is reflected back out to space). The problem arises because once the radiation that does pass through has heated the Earth, it's then re-emitted at a longer wavelength which is more easily absorbed by the clouds and greenhouse gases such as CO2. When it tries to go back out through the atmosphere, this time only 12% can get through. That means as much as 88% of it is sent back towards the Earth's surface a second time. This obviously produces a larger heating effect than would exist if there were no greenhouse gases. Think of it like a massive blanket covering the whole planet if any of the long words I used above confuse you.The greenhouse effect is completely natural and a necessary part of life – without the extra heating it provides the planet would be too cold to support life. The issue is that we've artificially increased the levels of the gases that cause it – it's predicted that in the 100 years between 1950 and 2050 we might manage to double our CO2 levels. I don't see how that can possibly not be our fault. Even if it's not, if global warming happens most of us will be screwed, so why not try our hardest to prevent it regardless?I doubt you'll pay attention to this even if you do read it, I just wish more people would actually try and educate themselves before assuming that thousands of people smarter than them are wrong...
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.