Debunking Global Warming Theory

    Why would anyone want to debunk a theory? Simply because following a false theory to an extension of practicality may very well lead to disaster.
    Does global warming exist? I don't know, but I will guess that it probably does. There is a lot of conflicting evidence on temperature taking at various locations, discussions of ice thickness, etc., but the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate there is some slight global warming in the recent past. Why?
    My purpose here is not to discuss the pros and cons of global warming but rather to concentrate on the theory that any global warming is resulting from the man's activity. I am particularly interested in increased emission of carbon dioxide through the burning of fossil fuels, and now an increase in atmospheric methane concentration, through leakage natural gas wells.
    Global Warming Theory says that the primary increase in global warming is caused by this increase in the atmospheric concentration of these two gases. To support the theory, the term Greenhouse Gas has been developed and needs to be understood.
    The National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says in its website (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html) that greenhouse gases allow direct sunlight to reach the Earth's surface unimpeded. As the short-wave energy heats the surface, heat is reradiated to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb this energy (heat), thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere. Another way to say this is that sunlight heats up your car and the heat cannot escape to interstellar space, because greenhouse gases block the escape.
    I have no quarrel with this. Atmospheric gases do impede the escape of heat from a terrestrial body. For example, the moon has no gases and there are great extremes of temperature. Conversely, the greenhouse gases of the Earth equalize temperatures, so that the difference between day and night temperatures are not so great as to make the place unlivable.
    What are these greenhouse gases? Since we know that Earth's atmosphere is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen, with trace amounts of many other gases, it's a fair assumption that the greenhouse gas of Earth is composed primarily of nitrogen and oxygen.
    However, the Global Warming Theory enthusiasts are not satisfied with the obvious. For whatever reasons they may have, they desire to complicate the issue by attributing a special effect of higher global warming to the presence of the trace gases, particularly carbon dioxide and methane.
    The special effects are further defined by a mathematical term for Global Warming Potential. The equation is attached. If you look at it, don't be intimidated. Notice that there is a term for an investigated gas in the numerator and an equivalent term for carbon dioxide in the denominator. All this says is that we calculate the Global Warming Potential of any gas in relation to carbon dioxide. The assumption is that carbon dioxide is bad. It also says nothing about Global Warming EFFECTS. In other words it says nothing about how much nitrogen or oxygen contribute to the greenhouse effect of stabilizing temperatures, nor does it consider carbon dioxide and methane for that same activity.
    A little common sense tells you that in order for anything to have an effect on something else, it has to be present. If it's not there, it cannot have an effect. A reasonable extension of this thought that the more a substance is present, the greater will be its effect. Example, a glass of whiskey at 70% alcohol contains more alcohol than a glass of wine at 20% alcohol. The glass of whiskey will go farther toward inebriation than the glass of wine.
    Therefore, it stands to reason that because of the high concentrations of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, those gases will likely have a much greater effect on temperature equalization of the earth than will any trace gases. The only way this could not be true is if the trace gases have a very special attribute compared to nitrogen and oxygen. We are already seeing that the Global Warming Potential Equation does not address this possibility.
    Advocates of global warming increase caused by man-generated increases in carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere have developed another equation. The equation for Radiative Forcing Capacity (RF) is also attached. Again, do not be intimidated by the equation. The only term of significance that it contains is the infrared absorption of the gas being considered. That is, how much heat can a gas hold? Well, good! At least we have something that starts to concern the practical aspects of the atmosphere. We can calculate the RF of nitrogen, oxygen or any gas, but no one seems to have done that.
    But we also must return to common sense. While one gas may be able to hold more heat than another gas, it is obvious that the amount of gas present is an important factor. In other words, we must consider gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Let's compare the heats that could be held in the atmosphere by nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Let's take million parts of atmospheric gas. Of that total there are 790,000 parts of nitrogen. Making up a number, let's also say that each part of nitrogen can hold 1 calorie of heat. The content then for the nitrogen is 790,000 calories. Doing the same thing with carbon dioxide, there are 350 parts in the million parts of atmospheric gas. Let's also say that a part of carbon dioxide can hold twice as much heat as nitrogen. That would be 2 calories per part. With the 350 parts of carbon dioxide at 2 calories per part, the total heat content of the carbon dioxide would be 700 calories. Notice that the content of the carbon dioxide is only 0.08% of that held by the nitrogen. Not much effect. Let's also say that perhaps the carbon dioxide can hold 100 times more heat than the nitrogen. It's heat content would then be 4%. Still only borderline with respect to effectiveness, and we haven't even yet considered that the presence of oxygen would also bring that value down. We then also have to ask ourselves whether it is even reasonable that one part of carbon dioxide could be 100 times more effective in holding heat than one part of nitrogen. But these are calculations that actually could be made using the RF equation.
    Some have said there could be huge differences in the RF's of various gases. They have likened the action of heat without light, which is a reasonable comparison. When light strikes the surface, it can be transmitted, absorbed, or reflected. Usually all three actions occur, but in different amounts depending upon the object which the light strikes. For example, when light strikes glass, a large portion of it is transmitted. If light strikes a black object, a large portion of the light is absorbed. And if light strikes a reflective surface, such as a shiny metal, a large portion will be reflected. But notice that in order to have these large differences, we had to materially change the nature of the object being struck by light. In the atmosphere, we don't have these large differences. All components are gases. True. Some have two items per molecule, such as nitrogen and oxygen. Some have three atoms per molecule, such as carbon dioxide. And, some have four atoms per molecule, such as methane.
    However, we do have some real data on heat transmission through various gases, which is exactly our case in greenhouse gas considerations. Thermal conductivity is the rate at which heat can pass through a substance. The Gas Encyclopedia by Air Liquide (http://encyclopedia.airliquide.com/encyclopedia.asp) gives thermal conductivity for many pure gases. Thermal conductivities for both nitrogen and oxygen are about 24. For carbon dioxide, it is 14 and for methane 32. Since the higher the thermal conductivity, the less heat is being absorbed by a gas, it is apparent that carbon dioxide absorbs more heat than nitrogen and oxygen. Conversely, methane absorbs less heat. Another important factor is the ratio of the numbers. If we take carbon dioxide, it is 1.7 times more effective than nitrogen in absorbing heat. Notice that we said earlier that if carbon dioxide would be twice as effective as nitrogen in heat holding, the mere fact that there's so little of it would make a heat absorption difference in the atmosphere of only 0.08%.
    For strong believers that any observed global warming is caused by an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration through burning fossil fuels, I hope that the above presentation has shed a little doubt on that presumption. At least, I feel that considering heat absorption of major atmospheric gases, rather than considering only trace gases, is a realistic approach to determining total heat effects related to greenhouse gases and global warming. 
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential