Part 3 of Global Warming: Man-made
by Richard C Kozinski
From September/October 2004 (#57) Cool
© October 2004 All Rights Reserved
from the editor)
Facts about man and earth. There are about 6 billion people on this planet. They would all fit standing up in a space 25 miles by 25 miles. The earth has a little less than 200 million square miles on its total surface. Spread the 6 billion out equally and there would be 30 of us per square mile. Each group of 30, with their autos and power plants, produces approximately 3 billion BTU's per year (my best assumption). This is 108 BTU per square foot per year.
If all that heat was put into the ocean for 5,000 years, it would heat it 1°F; but just 13 feet of ocean evaporation in those 5,000 years would take back that 1°F increase. However, putting that amount of heat into our atmosphere for only 100 years would heat our air by 21°F (with everything else staying constant).
If you understand the last paragraph, you'll appreciate our oceans more than ever. Perhaps the reader can now better appreciate the climate stabilizing influence of our oceans, and realize that any global warming predictions read or heard which ignore the ocean should be viewed with deep skepticism.
Scientists disregard man-made heat in their analysis, focusing instead on the green house effect, which they calculate has many times the “forcing” effect of man-made heat. They have also ignored the hydrological cycle in their analysis. While man-made heat adds 108 BTU/ft to earth's surface, a 2-watt/meter² forcing does add about 50 times that. However, those amounts are dwarfed by the energy involved in evaporating or condensing the 30 inches of rain that falls on this square foot in a year. This is 152,000 BTU/year or 1500 times that of man-made heat.
Imagine standing under a heat lamp in a shower stall and a cold shower is turned on you. Will turning on a second heat lamp have much effect? Do you ignore the water flowing on you and ask, “Why am I not warming up,” especially if the water flow is increased? (Rainfall has significantly increased since 1900.)
Man-made heat is nothing to fear, except when concentrated. The only place man-made heat manifests itself is when it's concentrated in the cities. Instead of 30 people per square mile, a city square mile may have 2,000 families. Heat output in an American city may be 500 million BTU per year per family, or, 98 BTU/ft²/day total. This heat will result in a 20°F rise in an air column over 280 feet high every day. Cities in Michigan run about 3°F higher in maximum temperatures compared to farmland, 5°F in annual means and 7-10°F higher in minimum means.
This heat concentration is 300 times that of farmland communities that have about 7 families per square mile. It is many times greater than global warming scenarios, which are in the 15 BTU/ft²/day range (for a 2 W/m² forcing). Concerning health risks with global warming, the city dwellers are the guinea pigs since they are already living with it. The health risk on its face is preposterous anyway. Are we to conclude that people in Florida are less healthy than folks in Michigan? Is that why all those Michiganians go to Florida in the winter-to get sick?
Analogy of the Greenhouse Effect. Since most readers are not scientists, we will use a simple analogy to illustrate what greenhouse gases do. Assume that a 1000-Watt heater heats a one-room house. Assume that at full heat output the home warms up to 80°F on a 0°F day. Now add insulation and the home warms to 90°F, which is the new balance where heat input equals heat output. The extra insulation provides the same effect as the greenhouse gases with the difference that radiant heat emanating from the earth is what those gases stop.
Writer's analysis of the green house effect with rain factored in. Let's go back to the house with the 1000-watt heater, but now with even more insulation (green house gases). So a 90°F indoor temperature is the steady state temperature on a 0°F day. Assume also that from 80°F, it took (after you added insulation) 10 hours to get to 90°F. Now spray the interior with cool water and bring the temperature back to 80°F. Spray every one hour thereafter. The home cannot ever get to 90°F due to this cooling spray (assuming you have adequately cool water and enough of it). It will max out at 81°F if the warm-up rate is linear and 10°F per 10 hours. If you had a large lake to drain from, the water you send back will be slightly warmer and might raise this lake's temperature by 1°F in 100 years. We will now apply this same reasoning to the end point of a 10°F global warming scenario.
Assumptions: An increase of enough CO2 to obtain a 2-watt/m² forcing effect in one hundred years. We are going to use the square foot instead of meters, so this increased heat is 5360 BTU/ft² year acting on a one-foot2 air column, which weighs 2117 pounds. The rise in temperature of this column in one year would be 10.6°F. Now, assuming emission of radiant heat out balances at this temperature, we have the dreaded scenario. As with the house example, let rain cool this atmosphere once a month to 80°F. Assume we were at 80°F before the green house had the potential to go to 90.6°F at peak. So if we get down to 80°F, the rise in one month is 10.6°F/12 = .88°F and then we get our shower again. The average temperature that month will then be 80°F + .44 or 80.44°F. Now assume we put all of this heat into the ocean and mix it. It would take over 100 years, closer to 150, to warm the ocean 1°F. If in that 100 to 150 year period 13 additional feet of ocean evaporation occurred, the ocean would not warm at all.
The debate over temperature measurement. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is convinced that the land temperature measurements are more accurate than weather satellite readings. The satellites showed a period of 18 years (1979 to1996) where little if any change in earths temperature was indicated.
The land measurements take into account cities probably as a greater weighting factor since mountains, forests and oceans do not have weather stations to the same density. There is no question cities have warmed over the last 100 years.
The satellite readings, even if not accurate in the absolute, may be more accurate in showing a differential over time, especially when they can read areas such as oceans, mountains and land. They have shown that the stratosphere is cooling at 13 miles altitude.
Glaciers and Sea Level Rise. Scientists tell us that 15,000 years ago, glaciers covered 1/3 of the earth and the sea level was 426 feet lower. Today, glaciers cover 11% and the two largest, Antarctica and Greenland, contain 99% of the world's ice. These two cover about 5.5 million square miles and are stable, though possibly even expanding (snowfall exceeds melting runoff). This is according to the McGraw Hill 2002 Edition Encyclopedia.
If all glaciers melted, sea level would raise about 197 feet. This means all the smaller glaciers melting could raise the sea level by about 2 feet. Sea level has risen about 3 feet per century on average since 15,000 years ago. Obviously, as the glaciers melted away, the sea level rise slowed. The rise has been about 5 inches in the last 100 years, with some scientists blaming the rise on the ocean bottom raising, since the largest glaciers were expanding in ice volume.
The IPCC has predicted sea levels will rise 4 to 35 inches in the next 100 years, blaming it on global warming. Others have predicted a 3 to 6 foot rise, due mostly to global warming. A simple analysis shows that even a 3 foot rise is quite unlikely because to achieve that, a 1.4 million square mile area (and about 3.5 feet deep) of ice must melt every year for 100 years. This is just a little less than 1000 cubic miles per year. Plus, it must also be over and above the melting of all snowfall landing on the glaciers. Now, besides melting, the water must run into the ocean. But glaciers have valleys that will trap the water and leave permanent lakes that will freeze (and maybe thaw in warm months). Scientists seem to be panicking over a 7000 km² melting, which is a fraction of 1% of what is required.
The heat per year required to melt a square foot of ice, 3.5 feet thick, is on the order of 26,000 BTU/yr. A one-watt/m² forcing (annual greenhouse effect) calculates to only about 10% of that. Consider also that the highest annual temperature over the two largest glaciers is well below 32°F (the melting temperature of ice). So a couple degrees rise in air may still be a long way from 32°F. Ice shelves breaking off into the ocean has been probably going on for ages as the glaciers expand. Also, consider that the ancient glaciers that have melted had compressed the ground, and it is still rebounding. The eastern great lakes land is still rising at a foot per century, and European land may be rising faster than sea level.
It would be quite interesting to know how the alarmists calculated the high end of their predictions. In any case, I don't believe we can reasonably expect that natural melting of glaciers will not continue.
Writer's Conclusions. After months of research on “global warming,” I find that its proponents, such as the IPCC, may be overstating the problem by using incomplete analyses, laced with uncertainty, to support their scenarios. Some of their reports strain credulity and cast doubt on their conclusions of air temperature and sea level rises.
For example, their report that cloud measurement is uncertain today didn't stop them from stating that clouds increased 2% since 1900. Also, scientists state that the temperature of 140 million square miles of ocean over 2 miles deep has increased by 1/10°F in 50 years-let them tell us how they measured this, and then explain why their global warming calculations don't include the heat transferred from earth's hot core? Shouldn't they explain why year-to-year evaporation differences are not considered? The IPCC doesn't factor in ocean heat storage, cloud cover, or rainfall increase, but states that the earth is warming. When satellite readings refute this, they simply say the satellites are inaccurate. These scientists, like lawmakers, feed from the public trough. They obviously don't care what effect these “Junk Science” scenarios have on the American economy. Their jobs are recession proof.
The problem with with their potentially flawed analyses is that industries are leaving for places like China where environmental laws are weak. The American public isn't stupid; they've seen the air conditioning industry suffer from another cool summer in the U.S., resulting in less business. Shouldn't the green house effect increase temperatures all of the time over the normal cycle? Does your attic insulation only work on Sunday?
Perhaps the other factors mentioned above are really controlling climate? This subject cries for a Congressional hearing where these so called experts prove their theories or be exposed. I would like to cross examine the scientist who tells us the clouds were 2% less in 1900.
California lawmakers seem to be especially good at harming our economy. They constantly blame the domestic auto industry for the smog in L.A., and have undoubtedly caused many Americans to buy foreign cars. In their efforts to save the earth, California called out a gasoline additive a few years ago that ended up polluting ground water supplies. They've mandated stringent emission tests that harm financially poorer people driving older cars (that now are not even worth the cost of repairs). They like logging and brush cutting policies that cause runaway fires. Save a tree but burn a hundred, and do not let your house get in the way. Undoubtedly they would like power plants to stop burning coal, which would make the oil and gas barons very happy. Lately, they have passed more stringent tailpipe emission standards. While reducing smog sounds good, it may increase health care costs as skin cancer will increase. (Ozone is a component of smog.)
They now want to eliminate refrigerant R-134a in cars, an effort that will have a miniscule effect on green house gas increase. R-152a, a flammable refrigerant, is being considered. When an evaporator bursts in a collision and the occupants are incinerated, don't blame the auto companies.
What to do about smog. I would like to suggest a solution to smog inversions. Perhaps engineering solutions could be developed which could clean smog from homes, work places and vehicles. During inversions, residents could use them for refuge as they do during lightning storms, snowfalls and the like. Trying to eliminate the last 1% of pollutants from autos just doesn't make sense because it's not going to solve the problem and may be very expensive.
As a young boy growing up in Detroit in the 40's and 50's, I saw smokestacks belching black coal smoke. Homes burned coal and snow was covered with soot. Diesel buses put out black smelly fumes, as did some cars. Today the air is much, much cleaner. In spite of the past nasty environment, my lungs are good as are those of my 90-year-old mother-in-law. Why all this panic? We have come a long way. Should we bankrupt our economy chasing unnecessary standards of pollution?
In conclusion, what we must realize is that earth's core is cooling-giving up heat to the ocean and ultimately to space. Eventually earth will become another cold Mars. Will future generations-shivering-call us idiots for getting rid of this heat? Whether you, the reader, agrees with my analysis or not, you must quit being like sheep. Do a little research. This is not rocket science. Remember, scientists not too long ago convinced the people the earth was flat. We are constantly being told how much CO2 we emit. But how about how much our trees absorb? Mr. Owen McShane of New Zealand says the U.S. is a net zero emitter of CO2. Is he right? Let us ask the EPA.
I believe the current administration in Washington, at great political risk, has wisely taken a wait and see attitude. So far, they've refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty, putting our jobs in front of political ambitions.
Those wishing to comment on Mr. Kozinski’s writings are encouraged to do so. Differing facts and opinions are welcome. Please respond to the
Here's the link to the subscription page for the Print version:
to send send a message to Mr. Kozinski