• Home
  • Current News
  • Respected Scientist & Democrat: Trump Correct on ‘Hoax’ Global Warming

Respected Scientist & Democrat: Trump Correct on ‘Hoax’ Global Warming

Written by Dr Martin Hertzberg

Respected former American government scientist and life-long Democrat explains why Donald Trump is correct in calling man-made global warming a “hoax.”

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a great number of establishment groupthinkers tell us carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming and that this is ‘established science’ – it is not.

Dr Martin Hertzberg, a retired U.S. Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry  writes:

Shocking isn’t it? You might ask, how can a lifelong Democrat like myself reject my party’s position on global warming and join the camp of the skeptics, virtually all of whom are Republicans or neocons.

So, I’ll tell you how it all started for me. My involvement in this issue of global warming started in 1986 at a NATO-sponsored meeting on coal combustion that was held in the French Alps. A colleague from MIT, actually solicited my opinion on the subject of global warming.

Now, just being asked for an opinion by someone from MIT is a great honor. I had given a paper at a Combustion Symposium at MIT in which I had used the infrared emissions from CO2 to measure explosion temperatures, so I was familiar with its spectrum, and he knew that I had once been a meteorologist, so he solicited my opinion.

Shortly thereafter, a colleague from New Zealand, who had worked in our lab while on his sabbatical, wrote to me about the subject, and we proceeded to collaborate on a study of the problem. We confined our attention to item 3 of the Gore-IPCC argument which dealt with the infrared absorption of atmospheric CO2 and the atmospheric heating that would result.

In 1994, I presented our paper at a Symposium in Irvine, California. Let us look at the atmospheric absorption spectrum of CO2 (below).

This plot shows the approximate spectrum of the infrared heat radiated to free space from the surface of the earth at the earth’s average temperature. It represents the maximum possible heat loss that would balance the heat gained from the sun.

Plotted on the graph are the narrow absorption bands of atmospheric CO2 that would represent its “greenhouse effect”. They are at 4.3 and 15 microns. I used the 4.3 micron band for my measurements of gas temperatures. The bands are narrow and confined and at most they can absorb only a few percent of the total energy under this curve.

The situation is further clarified in this next figure (below), where we show the effect of increasing the concentration of CO2 on atmospheric heating.

The first 20 ppm of CO2 essentially makes the atmosphere almost opaque at those previously shown wave lengths, so that doubling the concentration to 40 ppm increases the heating effect by only 20 % more.

Doubling it again to 80 ppm increases the heating effect by only 7 %. As you can see, increasing the concentration further diminishes the heating effect, so that by the time we get to the last century’s increase from 280 to 380 ppm, the effect is utterly trivial.

It is as though you had blackened a glass window with one coat of paint so that it was 99 % opaque. Adding a second coat increases its opacity by only 1 % more, but it is now completely opaque. Adding a third coat, has no visible effect at all.

Even more significant is the effect of water vapor in the atmosphere, which for a tropical atmosphere can be as high as 20,000 parts per million. Its absorption bands in the infrared are far  more significant than those of CO2. They are shown here (below) and they absorb an order of magnitude more than can be absorbed by CO2.

In addition, water in the form of cloud droplets covers on the average about 30 % of the earth’s atmosphere, so that clouds will keep about 30 % of this central radiance from being lost to free space.

After looking at such data and evaluating it, the conclusion of our 1994 paper was (and I quote):

“The problem of obtaining a reliable value for the absorptivity to emissivity ratio for all the entities at the earth’s surface and in its atmosphere that participate in the radiative equilibrium process is a formidable task. It is unlikely that any proposed model contains a realist ratio for the entire globe over a long enough time scale…. “ It is implausible to expect that small changes in the concentration of any minor atmospheric constituent such as carbon dioxide, can significantly influence that radiative balance, despite the fact that carbon dioxide plays a major role in the biosphere. The most significant atmospheric component in the radiative balance is water: as a homogeneous absorbing and emitting vapor, in its heat transport by evaporation and condensation; as clouds, snow and ice cover, which have a major effect on the albedo, and as the enormous circulating mass of liquid ocean, whose heat capacity and mass/energy transport with the atmosphere dominate the earth’s weather.”

In the 14 years since that conclusion was drawn, all the data I have seen only further reinforces that conclusion. So much so, that I currently dramatize that conclusion on the subject by saying:

“ In comparison to water in all of its forms, the effect of the carbon dioxide increase over the last century on the temperature of the earth is about as significant as a few farts in a hurricane!”

In the intervening years, as the fear mongering hysteria on the subject of human caused global warming grew, and as Gore was able to negotiate the Kyoto protocol on the subject, I felt compelled to get my analysis published more widely.

I wrote to Bert Bolin, the Swedish oceanographer, who headed the IPCC, and submitted the paper to Nature and Science, but despite the fact that I had published about 100 research papers by then, including a Navy manual on the use of computer models to forecast weather, they wouldn’t publish my analysis.

Who was I to challenge all those sophisticated computer models that were predicting catastrophic warming as a result of human emissions of CO2?

Never mind that none of them had ever been verified, and besides I was challenging the results of an industry that was being supported by billions of dollars of research contracts and grants. Now since that 1994 paper, I have had the opportunity to study the data dealing with some of the other steps in this indictment of Carbon Dioxide, the Earth’s innocent source of life, the essential ingredient of photosynthesis on which virtually all life on earth depends.

Read the full paper here: carbon-sense.com


Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    Carl Brehmer


    You use the word “hoax” but a better word is “con”. “Hoax” simply means that someone is trying to fool someone else. A “con” on the other hand is someone trying to fool someone else for monetary gain. Their end game is the imposition of a global tax on the use of hydrocarbon energy. Very lucrative if they can pull it off.

Comments are closed