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

Gary Novak

Global Warming Home



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
Simple Words
Communication Corruption

Alphabetical Page List
And Summaries
Detailed Specifics:

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


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


Heat Curve Fakery


This curve shows total fakery without the slightest concern for scientific legitimacy.

The curve is the fudge factor which says "Heat Increase = 5.35 ln C/C0." C is the amount of CO2 which exists now (or at some time in the future), and C0 is the amount of CO2 in the air before humans influenced the result, which is assumed to be 280 parts per million (ppm).

It's supposed to show how heat increases as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. Climatologists say it is a flawless representation of the primary effect of CO2, because it shows a diminishing amount of heat in the future due to saturation. Natural log (ln) does that. It shows a diminishing curve. The problem is that saturation occurred long ago, while this curve shows it never does quite occur.

Here are the specifics: At the present time, CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs all radiation available to it by the time the radiation travels ten meters from its source. Absorbing all radiation means it saturates. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause it to absorbe all radiation which it can absorb in half the distance, which is five meters. Reducing the distance is not increasing the heat.
Therefore, the curve should be flat on top, as shown with the green line here:


With one tenth as much CO2 in the air, all available radiation would be absorbed in ten times as much distance, which is 100 meters. With one hundredth as much CO2 in the air, saturation occurs in 1000 meters. When is the amount not saturated? Non saturation is almost impossible to achieve. This means the line is flat on top at a very low level. Heat does not increase; only the distance radiation travels before being completely absorbed decreases, as CO2 increases in the atmosphere.

Notice this important point: When there was half as much CO2 in the air, it absorbed all radiation available to it in 20 meters. The distance is now 10 meters. No change in heat occurred while distance decreased. There is no science which will resolve this contradiction. Because of saturation, there can be no heat increase as CO2 increases in the atmosphere.

Where then did the false curve come from? To write a proper curve, there must be either a theory or a measurement to align the curve upon. There is no theory which will say how much heat CO2 should add to the atmosphere, because infinite complexity occurs, and an equilibrium temperature is achieved by nature.

Under such circumstances, to write a curve would require some direct measurements to align upon. The only measurement available was the past assumed temperature increase. So the equation (fudge factor) extends the assumed past into the future. In doing so, saturation was pushed way into the future, while it occurred way in the past.

Most climatologists know that saturation already occurred, and they have been trying to figure out how to get around it in their rationalizations. There is no way to write an equation, when no one knows how and where the mechanism is supposed to occur. The equation is nothing but a slopped-together set of symbols which shows heat increasing with CO2 increasing. Yet even critics within climatology usually say this part is unquestionable, and only secondary effects are in question.

Where is the mysterious science which makes the fudge factor so unquestionable? If it existed, it would be highly visible. It comes out of nowhere, and it is nonexistent.

There is no real curve, because the planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Even the first one ppm CO2 in the atmosphere did not create any heat.