The Myth of Global Warming

Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

The idea that the Globe is warming has been repeated so often and by so many eminent scientists of both sides – I mean both by Warmists and Skeptics – that surely it must true. earth v sunBut the fact is that nothing could be farther from the truth. Believe me, any Tom Dick or Harry with reasonable intelligence can prove this to himself – or herself, if I must be politically correct.

There is no such entity as a Global Temperature. Wait a moment! A few days ago I was assured by email by none other than Professor John Christy that there is an average Global Temperature. Who am I to disagree? And remember he is a renowned Skeptic at the University of Alabama for Space Studies. Sure there is an average temperature, though God alone knows how he or any of the others work it out. But I did not deny some sort of average. What I have said and I repeat – There is no such entity as a Global Temperature. That is entirely different to an average.

Any fool can understand that. As the Sun goes down the temperature falls, even in the Sahara. Where has all that midday heat disappeared? As my central heating switches off the temperature in my living room and throughout my house falls. Should my central heating fail, as it has done every now and then to the consternation of my wife and myself, I am bereft – I feel extremely miserable if I am cold. I may jump about and get on my exercise machine in order to keep warm; I may put on a thick pullover or even crawl into bed, but what must be my inexorable conclusion? The conclusion is that everything everywhere is cooling by itself. 

It just so happened that this afternoon I watched a documentary with the renowned Dr Iain Stewart – perhaps some of you will remember his documentary where he is in the Siberian wastes telling us that methane is ten times more powerful than Carbon Dioxide, and woe betide us all if through Global Warming the permafrost began to melt. To demonstrate this he scraped some snow off till he could see the ice packed with bubbles of methane and to illustrate his point he lit this gas, which flared and almost blew him off his feet. If the permafrost began to melt all this methane would be released and this would make for an infernal round of more and more Global Warming and Climate Change.  It all sounds so plausible. Well, until one asks a simple question. Where did the heat from the methane go? Shall I tell you, as if you do not know already? The heat has gone up and away by convection. He is a great scientist and in this case a famous Warmist one. He is concerned that the gases in the atmosphere are getting hotter and hotter and warming the Globe. Is he correct? Or have I misunderstood him?

He thinks that the atmosphere warms the Globe. But precisely the opposite is true. All the gases of the atmosphere without exception carry the heat from the Earth upwards and away. It is called convection and when convection can no longer operate the much-maligned Greenhouse Gases radiate what’s left to Outer Space. So when I say that any Tom, Dick or Harry can observe this for themselves that is very largely true. Everybody knows that hot gases rise upwards and as they rise the molecules grow farther apart and cooling takes place.

What we all know is that the Globe is cooling. The Globe is cooling naturally and all the time without any exception. Wait a minute! How then do we get warm? Answer: You, Sir, whether your name is John or Joshua, you know that the Sun warms the Earth and the Oceans. Every child who plays out in the Sun knows instinctively that it is the Sun that warms the Earth and the Oceans.

Without the Sun would Carbon Dioxide or Methane keep you warm? Don’t be silly – it is inconceivable. It is a myth. There is some stupid myth that without Carbon Dioxide the Earth would be miles colder, and luckily for us the Earth has an average temperature of 15ºC. Did you know that? Well, if you did you can forget it now.

The whole Global Warming myth – that is to say that Man is warming the Globe is all based on averages, not reality. There are pompous idiots who sincerely believe that man can regulate the temperature of the Globe by cutting emissions of Carbon Dioxide. This is just delusional nonsense. Why? Because there is no such thing as a Global Temperature. Any fool knows that. The Globe has thousands and thousands of temperatures constantly changing. As we orbit the Sun at over 66,000 miles an hour we are toasted on one side and we cool on the other. Any column of air gets colder and colder with altitude. Ask any mountaineer, or any walker in the Lake District or the Cairngorms. This is common knowledge. Why is there snow on the tops of mountains? Wherever you go in the world whether you fly over the mountains of Turkey, whether you try to climb Everest in Nepal it is always the same – it is law conformable – the higher you go the colder it gets.

A lot of scientists love averages. But tell me this – the temperature of the surface of the moon varies, so I am told, between 240C and minus 240C. So what is the average? The average is zero. But did the astronauts experience zero? Of course not! They landed in a lunar daytime – they had to take extreme precautions against the heat with space suits and special boots. In the same way if a person is trekking across Antarctica trying to get to the South Pole, is it any consolation to him that it warm in Mauritius or really steamy in Jakarta? None at all. The reality is the experience of the moment. One does not experience averages.

Take any 2 numbers. 12 and 8, the average is 10. Yet if I take 17 and 3 the average is still 10, though the reality is different. If I take 7 numbers let us say 16, 24, 96, 108, 33, 72 and 2 I can add them together and divide by 7 and I will get an average. So what?  This is what the climate wizards do. So they may indeed arrive at an average figure, whether it is done by a series of thermometers 5ft off the ground or by remote sensing from satellites, what is the difference? The difference is all leger-de–main.

It is all a means to persuade the man-in-the-street that the Globe is getting hotter and hotter and that it is all his fault. Absolute poppycock. Balderdash. On top of this these charlatans would persuade us all that they can regulate the Global temperature to within 2ºC, when no such temperature exists. 

Sure, there is an average. There may be a Global Mean Temperature. But these averages are divorced from reality. There are even some Skeptics who roundly declare that there has been no warming for 18 years and so many months. But that is arrant nonsense. It is scientific gibberish. The reality is flux – there is incessant movement as we hurtle through space and orbit the Sun. How big is the Sun? The Sun can contain one million three hundred thousand Earths, (1,300,000). In the face of this magnitude, in the face of solar storms and solar winds we are concerned about the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is but 0.04% of the whole. It is ludicrous. It is an absolute myth. It is the biggest con that has ever been committed on mankind. Lord preserved us all from the Black Magicians.

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    I cannot believe anyone with any intelligence can deny the simple fact that the atmosphere enhances the cooling of any object in contact with it if that object has a higher temperature.

    This is so blindingly obvious I am simply astounded people with PhDs can deny this absolute fact.

    I’ve seen a copy of an experiment on radiation and convective cooling which shows that in a vacuum radiation is responsible for 100% of the energy transfer, in a still atmosphere radiation is responsible for 64% of the energy transfer but in forced convection – think wind for example – this figure drops to ~38%.

    http://www.physics.ucc.ie/staff/Didfyz%20paper.pdf

    But you don’t need to read experimental data to seen that our atmosphere enhances cooling rates of objects warmer than it – just empty all the water from our car’s cooling system and see how long it runs without the enhanced cooling provided by the movement of air over the misnamed “radiator” fins – convection by motion or supplemented by a fan.

    In most of the localities on Earth the ground surfaces are warmer than the atmosphere above them.

    If for some reason the ground is cooler than the air the air is unlikely to warm the grounds surfaces anyway as warm air rises away from the ground and climatologists tell us 99% does not emit IR anyway – something I find amazing and doubtful.

  • Avatar

    Greg House

    |

    Anthony, the global warming is a myth indeed, although theoretically possible, and the
    “greenhouse effect” is a myth too, since it is physically impossible, like at all. The problem is, however, that your article failed to demonstrate that. As incompetent as usual. I allow me to cut the argumentation though, because I have delivered it to you a few times recently. Unfortunately, the lights are on, but nobody is at home. No, wait: this one is even worse, because you contradict YOURSELF now on the notion of “global temperature”. But never mind, keep writing, the readers need some fun.

  • Avatar

    smapple

    |

    And now for my last comment (hope you are reading from the bottom up). I don’t really care if it is heating or cooling. What gives you so much time to whine about this is the fact that we engineers have made your lives so easy that you can sit in air conditioned and heated spaces at a keyboard trying to find ways of conquering the world through regulatory fiat.
    So, my response is simple: Tell us when you are ready to stop carrying you water around in plastic Evian bottles, and when you are ready to give up that titanium framed bicycle, and plastic helmet. Tell us when you are ready to move back to the cave- give up A/C, give up heat, give up washers and dryers, etc. You will pound your clothes out in the stream, and gather your water there also, and hopefully crap and urinate somewhere away from there. That is if you are close enough to water. And guess what? We engineers can probably make even that comfortable to some extent. That’s what we do. Ergo, stop the whining. Lead by example. Move to the woods. But don’t burn any wood- that causes even greater carbon releases than the controlled burns we do at power plants. Live off the land. Then come crawling back when you cannot take it anymore, and we will welcome you back into our modern convenient society we have developed that has humans living longer lives than ever in history.
    Where do you want to draw the line? Or is it just the rest of us who need to give up the luxuries of modern society?

  • Avatar

    smapple

    |

    Whoops- left this out:
    Oh- by the way, I forgot to mention that you also have to account for “city effects”, i.e. if you have an air conditioning unit running in a building, it is rejecting HEAT in the summer, and artificially heating in the winter. SO, you really have to measure the HEAT CONTENT of the building internally, and average it with some sort of air volume model that considers how this affects the surrounding air. I doubt the temperature of inside buildings – especially in large cities – is averaged into the global temperature model in any way. Again thermodynamics might be over the heads of most of these climatologists with two year forecasting degrees.

  • Avatar

    smapple

    |

    OK- let’s take this an inch deeper.

    First: If you want to claim that the earth has warmed 1.1 degree C over the last 100 years I ask the simple question: What were you measuring temperature with 100 years ago that was accurate to within 1 degree C?? Let alone the fact that it must be accurate to at least 1/10 of the measurement to claim an accurate reading (study statistical rules if you doubt that). We cannot even make temperature gages that measure that in industrial uses today. And even to get that close, they must be calibrated to NIST standards regularly.
    Second: WHERE were you measuring temperature 100 years ago? I doubt you had sensors all over the ocean and the mountains of the planet to “average” this temperature. N\And don’t try to go to satellite data- that didn’t exist, and its measurement accuracy is even more unreliable.
    Third- What did you use as your temperature points? In my home town, I can see the map and see that at any one time, the temperature can vary by up to 10 degrees just a few miles apart. So, how did you choose the right one?
    Fourth- Just what specific temperature point did you use? Did you use the high and low, and then average them or did you integrate the temperature (correctly) across the day taking minute-by-minute readings, and then derive the correct average?
    And lastly, let’s get to the real problem- its not TEMPERATURE that matters, but HEAT CONTENT. In order to do that correctly, you have to take humidity, and pressure into context and calculate heat content. Q=MCpdT. That gets into thermodynamics, and I doubt they are even able to grasp the concept of that notion. So, do they have wet-bulb temperatures for the last hundred years from any of these locations? I doubt they even have them for the last two.
    ANd as a final note- don’t go to things like core samples, and tree rings. I think you can appreciate that studying temperature that way would be fraught with even more error.
    So- in conclusion- the earth may be cooling on the average or it may be warming on the average, but there is not a soul alive who has the proper DATA to prove it one way or the other. All bets are off at that point.
    I simply recall that in the 70’s the cover of Time magazine was trying to convince us that we were entering a new ice age and for the very same reasons. Quick- you have to drop everything you are doing and hand the power over to us to clean up your lives. Stay in your homes, and we will tell you when it is safe to come out.
    Oh- and don’t even get me started on how you’ve been measuring CO2 content for the last hundred years. The errors on that statement are even deeper. I suggest you find another causal correlation that you think will give you the reason to control my happiness and wellbeing.

  • Avatar

    PeterLester

    |

    This might run counter to the initial argument but methane microseeps from the entire earth’s surface including water have not yet been accounted for in the earth miodelling, e.g., the planet has been microseeping methane and other gases for millions of years. Meanwhile the oceans breath in and out accepting CO2 from precipitation and releasing both CO2 and Oxygen at various times as do the forests etc. Any argument that microseeps are extremely minute must take in to account the vast surface area of the entire planet, most of which has not yet been inhabited BTW.

  • Avatar

    John Shotsky

    |

    The myth of human caused global warming by CO2 simply cannot be true. Not only is CO2 a radiator, making it a cooling influence, let’s examine how much CO2 man is responsible for.
    Assuming that it is currently 400 ppm, that makes 4 parts per 10,000. Put 4 grains of black salt into a jar containing 9,996 grains of white salt, and ask yourself just how those 4 grains would affect the others. Obviously, it would be the other way around.
    But wait – most of that CO2 is completely natural. It would be present in the absence of man entirely. How much? It is claimed that it is 96%. That’s right, we contribute only 4% of the total load of CO2. Applying that to the above, we contribute only 5% (actually 4%, but lets round the numbers), making it 20 parts per million that is human contributed. That is 2 parts in 100,000. Again, put two grains of black salt into a container with 99,998 grains of white salt, and ask yourself how much effect the 2 would have on the 99,998.
    Because, it is claimed, that the human caused CO2 is responsible for warming the earth. So, those 20 ppm would have to be causing ALL of the warming.
    How on earth could anyone accept that concept. There are economies of scale at work here, and most people have not rationalized that scale. If we removed those 20 parts per million, does anyone actually think climate would be affected?
    This can be worked out on a greater scale by adding all the gh gases (except water vapor) together into their constituent percentage – 0.03% of the atmosphere. It should be obvious that the flea is not affecting the elephant.

  • Avatar

    John Shotsky

    |

    The concept of CO2 warming the atmosphere is completely wrong, for one very good reason: It radiates constantly, it absorbs only when struck by a photon or a warmer molecule. Think of a CO2 molecule as a flashlight that is constantly on. Think of the other 99.9% of the air molecules as flashlights which are turned off. They do contain energy, but do not emit under normal circumstances. Thus, CO2 and other gh gases COOL the atmosphere. If there were no gh gases, then the atmosphere could ONLY cool by contact with the surface of the earth, or cooler molecules – strictly by conduction. Only the surface of the earth could emit to space, and it would have to be WARMER than it is now to radiate more energy to space because radiation is proportional to temperature of the radiating entity. That should be enough to dispel the notion that CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere – it does just the opposite.
    Also, see my next comment about CO2…

Comments are closed