temperature graph   global Warming      
 Fudge Factor Replaces Science 
 Saturation Precludes 
Gary Novak

Global Warming Home

Alphabetical Page List

Trapping Heat

Dilution Factor

Underlying Science

Chatty Description

Temperature Effects

Equilibrium in Atmosphere

Radiative Transfer Equations

Fudge Factor


Greenhouse Gas Mathematics

Temperature Measurements


Firing Scientists

Acid in the Oceans

Heinz Hug Measurement

Methane is Weaker

Oceans not Rising

Fake Ice Core Data

Ice Melt Fraud

Future Ice Age

The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate

The Disputed Area

IPCC Propaganda

The Water Vapor Fraud

Humidity Fraud

Hockey Stick Graph

A Fake Mechanism

220x10-12 °C

  Chatty Description

Chatty Numbers

The miniscule quantities of heat called global warming are not being grasped by the public. Heat isn't just heat. When it disappears into nothing, it's called nothing.

If all of the heat which humans supposedly added to the atmosphere went into the oceans, it would only heat the top 100 meters to 0.025C. If it heated the surface of the oceans to the same temperature as the atmosphere (0.7C), it would only go down to 8 ft and none would be left in the atmosphere.

heat in ocean

It means global warming by greenhouse gases could not be heating the oceans even if it were heating the atmosphere as claimed. Yet, fake scientists claim it is killing corals by heating the oceans. They didn't look at heat capacity.

On top of that, the claimed 0.7C temperature increase caused by humans doesn't exist. Measurements showed no significant increase. But measurements were falsified too show an increase. The persons who altered the measurements admitted it and gave a phony excuse. There is no science in altered measurements—no excuses allowed. Yet alterations are standard operating procedure in physics. Altering is not reproducible measurement.

The reason why temperatures have not been increasing for several years is because the altering of numbers could only be done once. The alterations involved more lowering of earlier measurements than increasing of recent measurements. How could they do both, when there was only one excuse? Satellite measurements showed no significant increase since they began in the seventies.


Looking at what actually occurs shows that there is no heat there. Each CO2 molecule is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules. If you put one burning charcoal in a barbecue pit and surrounded it by 2,500 rocks, would it cook the food? Heat does not spread out so magically.

If each charcoal briquette were 1.5 inches diameter, it would be surrounded by 20 inches of rocks on all six sides. Could one charcoal briquette heat almost 2 feet of rocks on all sides? Those are the proportionalities being claimed for CO2 in the atmosphere.

A CO2 molecule must be almost the same temperature as the molecules around it, because heat rapidly equilibrates with its surroundings. This says that the charcoal briquette must be almost the same temperature as the 2,500 rocks around it.

Unlike charcoal briquettes, the CO2 in the air is not burning. It's only source of heat is absorption of 8% of the radiation in the air during the night. It was verified during the fifties and is not in dispute that CO2 absorbs 8% of the black body radiation. It's called black body, because it does the same thing at night as during the day.


You might assume from other representations that the radiation starts at the surface of the earth, but you would be wrong. The radiation is totally absorbed by the time it travels 10 meters. This means that most CO2 in the air only absorbs radiation which is emitted by other air molecules. Every molecule in existence is emitting radiation in proportion to its temperature as indicated by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, though that constant has quantitative problems.

Absorbing 8% of the radiation that exists during the night doesn't sound like the barn burner CO2 is supposed to be, so fakes say the heat is trapped due to a greenhouse effect. Trapped seems to mean there is a lot more than there otherwise would be.

Instead of being trapped, the energy is re-emitted in 83 femto seconds on average. This is how long it takes for one wave to be emitted from a CO2 molecule. There is nothing resembling trapping in such a process.

So why is the process called a "greenhouse effect" for "heat trapping gases"? Greenhouses cause heat to accumulate, because they create a physical barrier for air currents by using glass or plastic to stop the movement of air. There is no such barrier in the atmosphere; so there is nothing resembling a greenhouse effect to it. Contriving such fakery is not how rational persons produce science. It's a fakery and fraud process.

Chatty Description