ARTICLES BY GARY NOVAK
All articles are Copyright by Gary Novak.
All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted with permission.
Climate and Ice Ages
The past ten ice ages have been cycling at 100 thousand year intervals.
Environmental influences would not be so cyclic. Hot spots rotating in the
earth's core seem to be the best explanation.
Warm ocean currents are melting ice at the poles and damaging coral reefs.
It's primarily ocean temperatures that are increasing, and secondarily air
temperatures.
Rainfall is greatly increasing in the upper plains (of USA). That moisture
originates with evaporation of the Pacific Ocean, which must be heating up.
Atmospheric temperature is over-played in the hype on global warming.
Change in air temperature is not of much significance at even moderate
levels, let alone the minute levels being questioned. The reason is because air
has very low heat capacity.
Increases in temperatures below the ground surface have recently been
detected. This includes unusual melting of ice on lakes in Minnesota.
Increases in CO2 in the atmosphere have been occurring for about a century.
But only about 3% of the CO2 has human origins. A likely source of the increase
is heating of oceans, which causes CO2 to be released.
Heating of oceans appears to be the cause of ice ages. Increased evaporation
would create more cloud cover and reduce radiant heating.
Evidence for cloud cover causing ice ages is in the albedo effect, which
means reflection of radiation. Ocean levels drop 300-400 feet during ice ages.
They expose more land than is covered by ice. And much of it is in tropical
zones which have intense radiation.
Therefore, if the sun's radiation were getting to the earth's surface during
an ice age, it would create more atmospheric heat than usual, not less. This
indicates that radiation is blocked out during ice ages. Since cool-down occurs
for about 80 thousand years, only cloud cover would block radiation that long,
not dust or gases from asteroids or geological events.
The most likely cause of oceans being heated is hot spots cycling in the
earth's core. A very significant point of evidence is that recent ice ages have
been cycling at 100 thousand year intervals. Environmental causes would not be
so consistent. But convection in the earth's core could produce very precise
repetitious cycles.
A lot of heat from the earth's core gets to the surface, as indicated by deep
wells which produce warm water. Oceans are deeper than deep water wells. So the
oceans are picking up a lot of heat from the earth's core. Any increase, and an
ice age would surely be the result.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model of Ice Age: As oceans are heated due to hot spots rotating in the
earth's core, precipitation increases, air temperatures increase slightly, and
atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. This state continues for a few centuries,
until a trigger mechanism reverses the temperatures. The trigger is probably a
large volcanoe, which cools the earth's surface. This results in much winter
snow, which does not melt during the summer. The snow reflects much radiation
during the summer creating a precipitous decline in temperatures. The cold
temperatures and snow then continue for eighty thousand years, until the oceans
get so low that they expose a large amount of land mass, which causes heat-up to
occur.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News Article - The last weather ship in the world lies anchored in a severe
and lonely place in the Norwegian Sea. Since 1948, its crews have taken water
temperatures to produce the longest continuous set of deep-ocean data available.
After about 4 decades, those data revealed a dramatic, persistent rise in the
temperature 2,000 meters deep. Is it a sign of a fundamental change in
deep-ocean circulation? Of global climate change? Uwe Send, an oceanographer at
the University of Kiel in Germany, says no one knows. "The problem is, we don't
have this information but in a very few places in the ocean," he says.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is more information in libraries than on the internet concerning ice
ages.
Subject related book on ice ages:
Ice
Ages, Past and Future by Jon Erickson,
1990, Tab Books.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
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.
Main Points
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.
Explanations
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.
Motives
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)."
CO2 Science Org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Links:
Intelligent Design of the Globe
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.
Heat in the Earth's Core
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 Rights Reserved.
Reprinted with permission
Links to other articles by Gary Novak
|
