Global Warming: A Theory Based on Shaky Science, By Dr. James W. Buckee
President and CEO, Talisman Energy Inc.
World Energy, Vol.3, No.1
I read with dismay the unquestioning acceptance of the phenomenon of "global warming" as if axiomatically true, while in fact it is based on shaky science that is increasingly divergent from physical observations.
It is worth restating some basic physics: the earth is warmed by radiation from the sun. Some two-thirds of the sun's energy reaching the earth is retained by the atmosphere and the earth's surface. One-third radiates back to space.
Unfortunately for the global warming theorists, the earth is not warmed evenly throughout the atmosphere, oceans and crust. In fact, the varying temperatures on earth are determined by ever-shifting interplays of wind, water vapor, sunlight on heat-absorbing solids and other factors.
True, we can measure recorded temperatures over time in specific locations, resulting in trends that show measurable changes in average temperatures. But do temperature increases over the past century or so in specific geographic areas really prove that the whole world is getting warmer? The fact is, no one yet has measured the entire heat content of the earth's surface and atmosphere, much less determined if it's changing.
Historical Temperature Estimates
Historical estimates of temperature show a 0.5øC variation above and below the average over cycles of hundreds of years. Beginning with the year 1000 A.D., there was a medieval warm period from 1100 to 1300 (which is why Greenland and Vinland were so-named), then the "little ice age" from around 1400 to 1800. Since 1850 the world has been pulling out of the little ice age, hence giving the impression of steady warming. Since 1940, however, the balance of the evidence would say that the earth is cooling.
The most commonly used and longest continuous data set is based on U.K. measurements from 1850, with the addition later of other data from various locations. It shows an increase in temperature until 1940; in particular a 0.5øC increase between 1920 and 1940, followed by cooling 1940 to 1970 and a 0.2øC increase thereafter. The U.K. data set is not necessarily a predictor of the whole world, as it has been deeply influenced by increasing urbanization, the "heat island" effect of cities and roads causing local warming.
A different reliable data set is from the U.S. commencing in 1900 (Figure 1). This data has been corrected for the heat island effect. It shows a temperature increase from 1900 to 1930 and a decreasing trend from 1935 to present. In order to resolve these issues, NASA initiated a satellite survey in 1979 of the lower troposphere. These data show a small cooling trend (.04øC/decade) from 1979 to 1997. In particular, the polar temperature is cooling, which is in stark contradiction with the model predictions.
Seventeen stations around the North Atlantic Ocean show the same: cold decades at the start of the century warming to a maximum no later than 1950 and subsequent cooling. All are currently below their long-term means.
Atmospheric Agents
The atmosphere consists of 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 1 percent argon plus trace gases such as water vapor, CO2, methane, CFCs, ozone, etc. The concentration of CO2 is some 350 parts per million. In the absence of the atmosphere, the earth would be 33øC cooler, but the dominant heat-trapping medium is water vapor, not carbon dioxide. In fact, 98 percent of the so-called "greenhouse" effect would occur without the trace gases that are misleadingly called "greenhouse gases."
CO2 by itself has a minor warming effect, contributing 0.4øC to the 33øC temperature differential caused by the atmosphere. The predicted effects in the global warming models come predominantly through "positive feedback," or amplification from water vapor. In actuality, there is science and observation that indicates the feedback is negative, suggesting that evaporation and cloud formation would tend to restore the status quo.
As noted already, to get the alarming predictions, strong amplification from water is required. However, these models are unable to accurately model the effects of water. Water takes many forms such as clouds, rain, snow, ice, icebergs, rivers, waves, evaporation, etc., which are chaotic and complex and which have a large heat capacity relative to the gases. Further, the models only recently have begun to include oceanic effects, the lack of which was previously a fatal omission. The top few meters of ocean have a heat capacity equal to the whole atmosphere.
Temperature and CO2 Concentrations
CO2 is not a pollutant; on the contrary, it is the very stuff of life. By the process of photosynthesis, all plants use CO2 as the basic building block and in return "exhale" oxygen. In fact, the higher the CO2 concentration, the better the growth. Current fluctuations of temperature and CO2 concentrations are well within long-term observations.
The villain of the global warming theory is popularly supposed to be carbon dioxide. Data appears to show that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased since 1850 from 250 to 350 PPM. Most of that increase has occurred since 1970. The later data are taken from one station, the Mauna Loa station in Hawaii, which is in the crater of a volcano! The earlier data are taken from analysis of air trapped in bubbles in ice cores. This data assumes there is no fractionation that occurs during the process of trapping and recovering the trapped air, and that the increased solubility caused by pressure does not occur.
Most shockingly, however, it appears that the data are selected to present the lowest observed number (thus eliminating the higher points that might remove the trend) and are arbitrarily shifted by 83 years to make the data fit! This makes the case that the air is 83 years younger than the ice in which it is trapped.
One major difficult fact for the "evil CO2" school of thought is that the strong build-up of CO2 appears to occur after 1950, and therefore could not be the cause of the warming which occurred prior to 1940.
Sources of Carbon Dioxide on Earth
In order to consider the contribution of fossil fuel combustion as a part of atmospheric CO2, it is necessary to look at its "metabolism." The annual flux of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean is 90 gigatons per year, while that between the atmosphere and land is 100 gigatons.
Fossil fuel burning produces 5.9 gigatons per year and deforestation 0.4-2.6 gigatons annually of CO2. The important thing to note is that minor fluctuations in the main pathways of CO2 easily swamp the 3 percent contribution of fossil fuels, as would a 1 percent increase in the rate of plant growth.
Henry's law states that the colder the water, the more gas can be dissolved. Since the mass of the oceans is a million times greater than that of the atmosphere, the oceans represent an almost infinite CO2 sink in the form of limestone and ions in solution.
The partition coefficient between the ocean and atmosphere is 1:50. Hence to double the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide would take the combustion of more than all the known fossil fuel on earth. If all the known ultimate reserves of 7,000 gtc were burnt at once, it would increase atmospheric CO2 by 20 percent. Furthermore, studies show that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 5 to 11 years, hence there is plenty of time for the atmosphere to return to equilibrium at current rates of burning. Numerous studies show that a five-year lifetime, hence only 30 gtc, which is 4 percent or 14 ppm of atmospheric CO2, is due to all past fossil fuel burning.
Studies indicate CO2 increases five months after a corresponding rise in temperature in the oceans. Increased CO2 from any source other than a warming of the oceans would be balanced by increased production of limestone and increased vegetation.
When the data showing CO2 increasing was observed, scientists attempted to calculate the effect of varying CO2 concentrations on the temperature. Initial simulations were very simplistic, although the physical problem is immensely complex, even without the geometry of the surface of a rotating sphere.
One specific prediction of the computer simulations is that a rapid and significant temperature increase is projected to have already occurred in the 60-90ø latitude band. A study of the arctic troposphere from 1958 to 1986 and the NASA study from 1979 to 1997 both show cooling. The models are unable to reproduce the current climate and are unable to reproduce recent history. To use these models for prediction is bizarre!
Solar Magnetism
Long-term variations in temperature do correlate well with solar activity. Data going back over 10,000 years show 17 of 19 cold spells indicated by geologic records coincide with major lows in solar activity. Solar activity data since 1600 show a strong correlation with the general features of the temperature changes; for example, the "Maunder minimum" of 1620-1720 is the coldest part of the little ice age. More recent data, for 1750 to 1997, show a very detailed and close correlation of solar radiation and temperature fluctuations (see Figure 2).
The atmospheric heating mechanism from solar activity includes not only radiation, but the action of solar wind reducing the incidence of cosmic rays which seed cloud formation. This data set suggests that the observed temperature fluctuations are part of the normal pattern of nature. Efforts to alter these fluctuations would be as futile as King Canute ordering the tide to go back.
Conclusion, Or a Lack Thereof
In the face of the evidence cited above, there is no consistent basis of evidence which demonstrates that the earth has been warming over the past 30 years or so, that CO2 would play a causative role, or that fossil fuel burning would be a significant contributor. Certainly fossil fuel burning could not have been the cause of historical temperature fluctuations. It is plausible that CO2 levels increase as a result of warming induced by the sun.
I conclude, therefore, that causing economic hardship as a result of attempts to locally reduce atmospheric CO2 is seriously misguided. It will cause no discernible result because it would be attacking the wrong problem. What is needed is much better understanding of the science before we start unilaterally inflicting wrongly directed and costly policies.
.pdf version of this article: worldenergysource.com |
