temperature   global Warming      
 Equilibrium is the Reality 
 
 Saturation is the Proof 
 
 
 The Fakery of Modern Global Warming Science 
     

Gary Novak

Global Warming Home

About

Introduction

What, How and Why

List of Points

A Sociology Problem

Key Summaries:
How Modern Global Warming Science Took Form

Why Global Warming Science is Nothing but Fraud

Saturation, Proof of Climate Science Fraud

Fudge Factor for Settled Science

Fakery of the Primary CO2 Effect

Criminal Standards of Science

Background Principles:
Errors in Claims
Crunching the Numbers
Absorption Spectra
Explanations
Simple Words
Contrivance
Communication Corruption

Alphabetical Page List
And Summaries
Detailed Specifics:
Stefan-Boltzmann

Firing Scientists

Thermometer Fraud

Fake Ice Core Data

Equilibrium in Atmosphere

Acid in the Oceans

Oceans not Rising

Future Ice Age

"Delicate Balance" Fraud

Heat-Trapping Gases

The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate

Climategate

Second Climategate

The Disputed Area

IPCC Propaganda

The Water Vapor Fraud

Back Radiation is Absurd

The 41% Fraud

The 30% Fraud

A Fake Mechanism

Global Dynamic

River, not Window

What about Argo

Heinz Hug Measurement

Hockey Stick Graph

Ice Melt


                

Errors in Global Warming Claims
 

Climatologists did not account for equilibrium of CO2 or heat. Equilibrium removes the additive effect, which prevented a problem from occurring long ago.

The assumption of global warming being caused by greenhouse gases starts with the absurdity of additive effects. The effect of greenhouse gases is viewed as if it were independent of dynamic systems. Dynamic interactions are extreme for carbon dioxide and heat. In fact, so extreme that quantities cannot be pinned down, and theories have never stood up to criticism.
 
Alarmists assume that 280 parts per million carbon dioxide in the air is just the right amount, because that is how much there was before human influences. Where did such a stroke of luck come from? Supposedly, from a delicate balance between respiration and photosynthesis. Nowhere in biochemistry is anyone taught that metabolism of carbohydrates will leave 280 ppm CO2 in the air. Nor will photosynthesis. In fact, there was 5 times as much CO2 in the air during dinosaur years, and 20 times as much before that.

The oceans hold 4,500 times as much carbon as humans produce per year. It gets tied up as detritus, and some converts into calcium carbonate. Oceans draw CO2 from the air, because ocean water is strongly buffered at the alkaline pH of 8.1, while CO2 dissolves as an acid. As oceans saturate, they leave some CO2 in the air, but the amount is so little at this time that all life is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of CO2.
 
The heat which is supposedly produced by greenhouse gases is even less additive. Heat dissipates, as stated by the second law of thermodynamics. Heat invariably flows from more concentrated (warmer) to less concentrated (colder). No one can prevent it from doing so, as hard as engineers try. Motors have a typical efficiency of 20-40% because of the dissipation of heat.

Heat dissipation prevents temperatures from increasing in the atmosphere. Thirty percent of the infrared radiation produced by planet earth goes around greenhouse gases and into space, which creates equilibrium. Only 8% of black body radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide.
 
Alarmists attempt to convince us otherwise by using slogans such as "heat trapping gases." Wouldn't engineers like to find a heat trapping gas. The strange thought pattern that goes with that statement is that greenhouse gases absorb heat, which results in an increase in temperature. A jar of pickles on a kitchen table absorbs heat, but it doesn't heat the kitchen. The reason is the same in both casesheat dissipates until temperatures equilibrate. The temperature of the earth equilibrates at a point where the same amount of heat leaves as enters. That temperature cannot be changed. It is determined by rates at which matter emits radiation. Radiation which cools the earth is emitted from all matter, of which greenhouse gases are less than 1% of the atmosphere.

To change the equilibrium temperature would require something like an insulating material which slows the rate of heat dissipation. Carbon dioxide mixed with nitrogen and oxygen is nothing resembling an insulating material. The assumption of alarmists is that radiation which would otherwise go zipping into space is stopped by CO2 which absorbs it. How could it be otherwise? But the same amount of heat is going to radiate into space afterwards, because it is going to equal the amount that enters from the sun.
 
When confronted with this question, rationalizers say there is a shift in equilibrium temperature. What they fail to account for is that heat moves in almost zero time from molecule to molecule, and it gets radiated in almost the same amount of time, because it is the vibration of whole molecules which creates infrared radiation. In other words, alarmists assume blocking occurs without equilibrium at the level where CO2 absorbs radiation.

Alarmists assume that radiation absorbed by greenhouse gases is trapped and cannot escape into space. If 30% of infrared radiation were not escaping directly into space, would the alarmists be right? Perhaps half right. It would take longer for heat to work its way to the stratosphere, where it could be emitted, and the result might be some increase in temperature. But to assume such is occurring at this time is to contradict the equilibrium that is being produced by the 30% of radiation that is not influenced by greenhouse gases.
 
Alarmists also missed the effect of saturation. Rationalizers on the internet ridicule the concept of saturation, though all scientists recognize saturation and attempt to explain it away, which they fail to do. Saturation means the first few parts per million greenhouse gases absorbed all radiation available to them, so more of such gases cannot absorb more.

For awhile, scientists tried to rationalize saturation by claiming the shoulders of the absorption peaks do not saturate. At shoulder wavelengths, CO2 molecules are in a slightly different state due to stretching of bonds. Some persons claimed that 5% of the bandwidth for CO2 was not saturated. The claim is ridiculous, because CO2 absorbs all radiation available to it in 10 meters. In other words, no radiation at those frequencies is found at 11 meters from the source. Five percent of the molecules would allow radiation to go 20 times that far, which is 200 meters. Doubling the amount of CO2 reduces the distance to 100 m. Changing the distance does nothing to increase the heat.
 
Therefore, alarmist scientists were forced to shift their analysis to high in the atmosphere, where saturation does not occur. The problem is, there is no way to get high enough. They focused variously on 5 km and 9 km5 km because the Stefan-Boltzmann constant says the amount of heat being given off by planet earth leaves from a temperature of -19C. Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to the atmosphere is ridiculous, since it was designed for opaque surfaces. Claiming all heat gathers and leaves from a narrow zone is even more ridiculous.

So the logic shifted to a height where radiation is emitted freely into space. Picking 9 km of height doesn't get there. The density at 9 km is 30% of sea level atmosphere, which means radiation only has to travel 3.3 times as far to be completely absorbed.

But supposedly, satellites pick up radiation at wavelengths absorbed by CO2 from 9 km of height. The problem with measurements is that alarmists start at the end point and get any result they want. For 30 years, satellite measurements showed no significant heating of near-surface atmosphere, while contrivers altered the satellite measurements to conform with land measurements. Evaluation by critics showed land measurements were faked to show an increase. There has to be logic with evidence to indicate the validity of measurements, and it is ridiculous for claiming CO2-influenced wavelengths escape from 9 km in the atmosphere. An absence of CO2 blocking would be located somewhere high in the stratosphere, but the quantities are relative. There will always be a few molecules blocking.
 
It's the quantities which create the absurdity of upper atmosphere claims. Miniscule amounts of radiation or heat are involved, as most of the radiation which cools the planet leaves from the warmest areas, which means the near-surface troposphere. With miniscule effects high in the atmosphere, the temperature increase would have to be approximately 79C to create 1C temperature increase in the near-surface atmosphere. No temperature increase has ever been detected high in the atmosphere due to increased CO2.

The 79C increase is derived from these influences: A density of 30% requires a multiplying factor of 3.3. Radiating the heat downward would capture half of the heat (half going upward). A temperature of -43C at 9 km would only radiate 40% as much based on the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Only 30% of black body radiation goes around greenhouse gases and would get to the lower atmosphere. About 30% would be reflected due to sharp angles.

This amount assumes equal masses of air in both places. If they are not equal, some fraction is still an absurd amount of heat to be transferred. It's impossible to say whether the masses should be equal, because the effect does not exist.

It means a lot of radiation is doing something other than that, and the result is equilibrium uninfluenced by any possible effect by CO2 high in the atmosphere.

At the scientific level, what appears to be the prevailing claim is that increased amounts of CO2 will force radiation to escape from a higher and higher location in the atmosphere, which reduces the amount that can escape. Insulating that claim from everything else is absurd.

 

           
 
gbwm