Climatologists claim that the primary effect by carbon dioxide is that there are will be 3.7 watts per square meter less heat leaving the planet than entering from the sun upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air, and this results in a temperature increase of approximately 1°C for the near-surface atmosphere.

The first problem with that claim is that there can never be a difference between energy entering and exiting the planet when considering a long term average. Yet the result is supposed to be a perpetual 3.7 w/m², which means long tern.

One thing climatologists got wrong is the concept of rate. General science students in the seventh or eighth grade are supposed to understand the difference between rate and fixed result. Rate goes on creating some change continuously, forever. A fixed temperature does not.

If the rate of energy leaving were actually 3.7 w/m² less than the amount entering on a long term average, something on the planet would keep getting warmer and not stop when it reached 1°C increase. If the temperature increase stops at some point, the rate of energy entering and leaving must be the same. Yet climatologists do not have a time factor for when the rate differences are supposed to become equal. The difference is supposed to go on perpetually at 3.7 w/m², once the doubling of CO2 has occurred.

Climatologists have a supposed fix for this contradiction: They reverse the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and abracadabra, the impossible occurs. It works like this: In the forward direction, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant says a temperature increase of 1°C (when it is going from 15-16°C) will result in about 3.7 w/m² radiation increase being emitted from the surface of an opaque solid. So why not reverse the logic and say that a radiation increase of 3.7 w/m² will result in a temperature increase of 1°C on the surface of an opaque solid?

Reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not valid. There is not a logical set of cause-and-effect relationships when reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. One problem is that the 3.7 w/m² is located in a different place. It then comes from every point in the atmosphere. Various explanations for a mechanism locate the heating in various places, but regardless, it's not the same location as occurs with the forward direction of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

In the forward direction, the radiation leaves a defined surface and moves into an undefined infinity. In the reverse direction, the radiation comes from an undefined infinity and supposedly goes into a defined surface. The quantity 3.7 w/m² does not exist in an undefined infinity. It can only exist as a defined quantity at the surface from which it is being emitted.

This is not the least reason why the Stefan-Boltzmann constant cannot be applied to the atmosphere. Yet climatologists apply it routinely to the atmosphere, as if there were no difference between radiation leaving a three dimensional, transparent gas and leaving a two dimensional opaque solid. Watts per square meter are units based on two dimensions, not three dimensions, while the atmosphere is three dimensional. No two dimensional surface can be defined for the atmosphere, and no one tries to do so.

More important than a calculation error is that the fact that climatologists contrive their results out of word salad, starting at their desired end point and making scientifically absurd claims for a method of getting there. No real scientists could fail to notice the absurdities in the claims. But a bunch of muddle is supposed to obscure the absurdities from others. Science doesn't work that way. Nothing does. Cleaning the latrines isn't supposed to work that way. Why is society supposed to base the whole subject on trust, claiming that 97% of the scientists agree, when they operate at that standard?

Equilibrium Effects

Another problem with the analysis of the primary effect by CO2 is that it slides back and forth between accumulation of heat and equilibrium.

Equilibrium means that the rate of radiation entering from the sun equals the rate exiting into space. Anytime these two numbers are not the same, temperature is increasing or decreasing. Yet the claimed primary effect by CO2 says that the two numbers will not be equal—there will be a difference of 3.7 w/m² forever after. This would mean that the temperature keeps increasing forever after, but supposedly, it stops after increasing 1°C.

Greenhouse gases are called "heat trapping gases." What does heat trapping mean? The effect is supposedly like a greenhouse. Greenhouses do nothing of the sort. They block convectional currents, not radiation. Ignoring the bad analogy, trapping is assumed to mean heat cannot escape as radiation. Should not this mean that the temperature forever increases? If the temperature only goes up 1°C and stays there, is heat still being trapped? If so, isn't it all being trapped? It's total nonsense, yet fake scientists promote the nonsense rather than correct it.

To get real, starting with thermal conductivity coefficients would be a good start, since this simple concept has been studied for about 150 years and fills pages of engineering manuals. It means, if you heat one end of a metal rod, the heat will travel down the rod at a predictable rate, depending upon the diameter, mass, environment and so forth. This effect is related to the second law of thermo dynamics with says heat dissipates by moving from more concentrated areas to less concentrated areas. Humans have never been able to totally defy this result, as much as they try with such things as thermos bottles.

Therefore, if carbon dioxide increases the temperature of the atmosphere by 1°C, it must have a temperature of 2,500°C, because there are 2,500 air molecules surrounding each CO2 molecule. In fact, only a small percent of the CO2 is said to create global warming. If it is 5% of the CO2, each effective CO2 molecule must be 50,000°C to heat the air 1°C. Climatologists admit that the temperature of the CO2 molecules in the air is not much different that the temperature of the surrounding air.

How do they resolve this discrepancy? They don't; they brush it under the rug. The implication would have to be that something causes heat to accumulate rather than escape. With heat escaping in a normal way through radiation, it would escape the same from the CO2 molecules as the surrounding air molecules, which requires a ratio of 2,500 to one for the temperature, when the CO2 is surrounded by 2,500 air molecules.

If CO2 is heating the air 1°C while not being 2,500°C, heat would have to be accumulating in the surrounding air molecules. Accumulation of heat is a partial thing being subjected to equilibrium forces. Some heat accumulates during the day and is released during the nights. More heat accumulates in the summer than in the winter. But when the temperature stabilizes, the accumulation stops increasing. When the accumulation stops increasing, each CO2 molecule would have to be 2,500°C to heat the surrounding air 1°C, which is most of the time and which is always impossible.

When heat is not accumulating, it is escaping. When heat is escaping, it has to be replaced. If one molecule in 2,500 is replacing the heat, it has to be 2,500 times hotter than the 2,500 molecules which it is replacing the heat for.

The First Concern for Nonscientists