The cause of 'global warming" - Truth or Fiction?

     “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.” Have you ever heard someone use that quote?  Let me alter it a bit to: “Statistics don’t lie, but people with an agenda can misinterpret statistics.” Basically, statistical analysis is a method to extract relationships from confusing information. It is not always easy, though, and error of interpretation can always sneak in, either through error or intent. Let me give you an example.

     Early in my career I was working on a project studying the role of Phosphorus in eutrophication of a lake. (Eutrophication is a term used for the process of a clear water lake gradually being taken over by vegetation, eventually becoming a bog.) At one point we collected lake bottom samples along a transect from shallow to deep water, hoping this would provide some answers. Instead, it created confusion. Everything we measured was related to water depth. This made absolutely no sense … until we realized it was mechanical. All chemistry, instead, was related to organic matter, and through wave action that was gradually moved from shallow to deep water.

     Today we are bombarded with similar statistical analysis error of interpretation – and it is intentional as a method of financial gain. Is Carbon Dioxide CO₂ really causing the Earth to rapidly heat? Let’s analyze this interpretation. First of all, our “stove” is the sun, and the amount of heat reaching the Earth is directly related to solar surface activity. That activity is known to undergo high/low cycles. In the 1970s activity was low and everyone was talking about global cooling. There was fear we were headed into a new glacial period, which would have serious impact upon society and the ability to sustain global population.

      The argument is that solar activity does not adequately explain the current temperature trend, so it must be something else. The decision is that the “something else” must be CO₂, since that has been increasing. Wait a minute! What is the Specific Heat Capacity (SHC) of CO₂? 0.844 – 0.655, depending on how it is measured. (SHC is the amount of heat required to heat one gram one degree Celsius – expressed as Joules of heat) There happens to be something else in the atmosphere – water! What is the SHC of water? 4.184 Joules per gram per degree C. There are also other gasses in the atmosphere, and some have higher SHC than CO₂. For example, the SHC of Methane is about 2.3. While there is much less methane in the atmosphere, it has increased from about 1.6 ppm in 1980 to 1.85 in 2017 – faster than the increase of CO₂. Nitrous Oxide also has a higher SHC (0.88), but it is present in even lower concentration, so its contribution would be even less important.

     The concept that we live in a “global greenhouse” means something in the atmosphere traps solar heat during the day and controls loss of heat during the night, thus moderating surface temperature. The current concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is about 0.04%, or 400ppm. The concentration of water is variable, ranging from possibly 1% in polar regions to as much as 4% over tropical oceans. Now, which is going to be the better “greenhouse gas” – one with an SHC of 0.8, present as about 0.04% of the atmosphere, or one with an SHC of 4.1, present from 1 to 4% of the atmosphere?

Have you ever walked into shade during a hot day and immediately felt cooler? Have you ever wondered why a desert can be so hot during the day, but freezing at night? Carbon dioxide is certainly not the reason! Water is the answer – or, better, the lack of water in the atmosphere. Heat comes from the sun in the radiant form, so when we walk into shade we are no longer receiving the solar heat. Water in the atmosphere adsorbs a lot of that heat, so normally moderates surface temperature. No atmospheric water means hotter surface. Likewise, if there is little atmospheric water, there is nothing to prevent radiant cooling during the night. The same principle applies in early autumn when a cloudless sky often means frost, while cloud cover means one more night escaping a frost.

     When there is abundant water in the air, the “greenhouse effect” becomes operative. The water continues to collect the solar energy, but atmospheric water content is too variable for finding any relationship to surface temperature.  That brings us back to our original comments on statistics and the ability to extract relationships from confusing information.  

     When atmospheric data is carefully examined, it is obvious that CO₂ has been increasing, and world population is also increasing. This is obvious and understandable. Every time we burn some kind of carboniferous material, whether it be wood, coal, natural gas, gasoline, or any other burnable carbon containing fuel, two gaseous products - CO₂ and H₂O – are released into the atmosphere.  Thus, the amount of CO₂ and H₂O entering the atmosphere from human activity is logically related to human population. Problems arise, however, in attempting to develop any kind of relationship between these gasses and Earth surface temperatures, which have been increasing. Atmospheric water content should logically be related to surface temperature, but any kind of statistical relationship is compounded by the global water cycle that makes human existence possible in the first place.

     Then one individual had a “eureka moment!” If the world could be convinced that increasing global surface temperature is related to human activity, there is much money to be made. While we put far more H₂O than CO₂ into the atmosphere, the natural global water cycle makes any statistical relationship impossible. Conveniently, CO₂ in the atmosphere has also been increasing, and a plot of increasing temperature as a function of atmospheric CO₂ looks convincing. The campaign has been unbelievable successful and people around the world are convinced that increasing temperature is the result of human activities. But is this logical?

     While less studied than the water cycle, the earth also has a carbon cycle which makes existence possible. Every living organism on earth, both plant and animal, obtains energy through oxidation of carbon compounds to form CO₂ – i.e. respiration. If there were not a method to reverse the reaction the CO₂ level in the atmosphere would become toxic and all living organisms would die. Fortunately, plants are capable of photosynthesis, using solar energy to break the C-O bonds and restore O₂ in the atmosphere, and they produce more O₂ during the day than they use at night. In this way the global CO₂ level is maintained well below the toxic concentration.

     There are two areas of the earth primarily important in maintaining adequate O₂ and safe CO₂ levels in the atmosphere -this being the tropical rain forests and ocean algae. What is happening in these areas? A significant amount of the tropical rain forests of the world are being cleared for wood and kept clear for agricultural purposes. The ocean has become the final recipient of our human wastes, both chemical and solid. As a result, the algal population has been affected. We might ask, then, is the increase in atmospheric CO₂ really a function of our increasing energy production, or is it the result of the global carbon cycle being disrupted? Likewise, is the current increase in average surface temperature really  caused by an increased CO₂ in the atmosphere, or are the two observations unrelated but conveniently used for financial convenience? Logic tells us it may well be the latter, and any greenhouse effect is really a function of atmospheric water vapor abetted by increased solar activity.

     People have become so convinced of “global warming” being the result of increased atmospheric CO₂, though, that no politician looking toward being re-elected would ever dare suggest this attribution is in error. Besides many of them are financially benefiting in supporting the idea. You often hear, “the science is settled.” This not a scientist’s statement, but a politician’s – even if made by a person with scientist credentials. Science is never “settled.” All scientific research must be based on the positive theories – A is the result of B. This means that one valid research study showing this statement cannot be true means the theory must be discarded and replaced by a better one. There are a number of points upon which the current “settled science” can be questioned.

     What about the scientists who support the theory? The answer involves money again. Research funds are available for studies on the effect of increasing temperature on . . .  Scientists are always looking for research support. Few are going to attack this opportunity. When opportunities like this arise, the game is to figure out how you can twist your favorite research program to fit under the objectives of the granting agency. Were I not retired and no longer looking for research support, I must admit that I could be among the scientists doing “atmospheric research” in support of my real Soil Chemistry research interests.