Thursday , February 27 2020
Home / Mike Norman Economics / Dr Gary Novak Debunked About His Global Warming Denial

Dr Gary Novak Debunked About His Global Warming Denial

Summary:
Is global warming impossible because of CO₂'s dilution? Gary Novak argues (e.g. in his book, Science Errors and on his web site) that climate models are incorrect, because of a missing "dilution" 2factor. Climatologists skipped over the dilution factor. Each CO2 molecule in the air would have to be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility—because there are 2,500 air molecules around each CO2 molecule (400ppm). There cannot be greenhouse gases creating global warming for this reason. Novak the collision frequency of a typical gas is about [1,000,000,000 times per second] at 1 atm and room temperature, so the time in flight in a gas is typically 1 ns [nanosecond] So a given molecule (such as a CO2 molecule) can not have a higher kinetic energy than the other molecules in the gas

Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

Yanis Varoufakis writes Londoners for Assange – Dimitri Zografakis’ short film

Bill Mitchell writes Our sequel to Reclaiming the State in now in progress

John Quiggin writes One cheer for Labor’s 2050 zero net emissions target

run75441 writes Medicare Could Use the VA’s Negotiation Results on Insulins and Other Drugs

Is global warming impossible because of CO₂'s dilution?


Gary Novak argues (e.g. in his book, Science Errors and on his web site) that climate models are incorrect, because of a missing "dilution" 2factor.

Climatologists skipped over the dilution factor. Each CO2 molecule in the air would have to be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility—because there are 2,500 air molecules around each CO2 molecule (400ppm). There cannot be greenhouse gases creating global warming for this reason. Novak

the collision frequency of a typical gas is about [1,000,000,000 times per second] at 1 atm and room temperature, so the time in flight in a gas is typically 1 ns [nanosecond]
So a given molecule (such as a CO2 molecule) can not have a higher kinetic energy than the other molecules in the gas for more than the nanosecond time scale. Instead, the energy is distributed among the molecules by collisions.

For more information see Properties of Gases.

Separately, the claim is wrong to compare the full 400 ppm of CO2 to only 1°C.
Instead, without a greenhouse effect, Earth's temperature would be -18 °C compare to the 1951 and 1980 temperature of 14 °C.

So the total greenhouse effect is about 32 °C, and CO2 is responsible for 9-26% of the effect. H2O is the main contributor, at 60%, according to the American Chemical Society, but humans do not control H2O concentration, except by otherwise changing temperature.

More particularly, the 32 °C of greenhouse effect, based upon the average 1951 and 1980 temperature of 14 °C, should be compared to the corresponding CO2 concentration of 320 ppm in 1965. Increase in temperature since then should be compared relative to increase in CO2 concentration since then, while considering any hysteresis effects (such as time for oceans and ice to equilibrate to new temperature).

Also, the claim is wrong to assess that only the air needs to be heated to the new temperature. The heat capacity of the ocean is much greater than the atmosphere.
the collision frequency of a typical gas is about [1,000,000,000 times per second] at 1 atm and room temperature, so the time in flight in a gas is typically 1 ns [nanosecond]
So a given molecule (such as a CO2 molecule) can not have a higher kinetic energy than the other molecules in the gas for more than the nanosecond time scale. Instead, the energy is distributed among the molecules by collisions.

For more information see Properties of Gases.

Separately, the claim is wrong to compare the full 400 ppm of CO2 to only 1°C.
Instead, without a greenhouse effect, Earth's temperature would be -18 °C compare to the 1951 axnd 1980 temperature of 14 °C.
So the total greenhouse effect is about 32 °C, and CO2 is responsible for 9-26% of the effect. H2O is the main contributor, at 60%, according to the American Chemical Society, but humans do not control H2O concentration, except by otherwise changing temperature.

More particularly, the 32 °C of greenhouse effect, based upon the average 1951 and 1980 temperature of 14 °C, should be compared to the corresponding CO2 concentration of 320 ppm in 1965. Increase in temperature since then should be compared relative to increase in CO2 concentration since then, while considering any hysteresis effects (such as time for oceans and ice to equilibrate to new temperature).

Also, the claim is wrong to assess that only the air needs to be heated to the new temperature. The heat capacity of the ocean is much greater than the atmosphere.


Skeptics Stack Exchange

Gary Novak Debunked About Global Warming 

Mike Norman
Mike Norman is an economist and veteran trader whose career has spanned over 30 years on Wall Street. He is a former member and trader on the CME, NYMEX, COMEX and NYFE and he managed money for one of the largest hedge funds and ran a prop trading desk for Credit Suisse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *