global Warming          
Saturation is the Demise
of Global Warming Fakery

Virtual Proof of
Climate Science Fraud

Earth Needs More CO2
 
Background Science Explained Here
 
     

Gary Novak

Global Warming

About

Introduction

What, How and Why

Key Summaries:
Fakery of the Primary CO2 Effect

Saturation, Proof of Climate Science Fraud

Fudge Factor for Settled 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


               

Fakery of the Greenhouse Effect
 

A fudge factor says carbon dioxide creates 1°C temperature increase on planet earth, and then secondary effects increase it.

The primary effect is the science; the secondary effects are the witchcraft. So the science of climatology is reduced to a number (1°C), and only the witchcraft is studied or disputed.

The source of the 1°C primary effect is Hansen's fudge factor. It says Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0.

It's stunning that such an obvious fudge factor could be viewed as unquestionable. Huge amounts of complexity are swallowed up by the fudge factor. When those complexities vary, the fudge factor does not vary with them; it's fixed.

It shows a motive. Climatologists slid into the problem through total stupidity, and then they tried to fake their way through it with the fudge factor. It erases complexities which they cannot handle.

A half-truth is that carbon dioxide will absorb radiation, but so will a jar of pickles on the kitchen table. CO2 does not heat the atmosphere for the same reason a jar of pickles does not heat the kitchen. The general reason is because total effects equilibrate without adding heat.

Climatologists drew flash conclusions about CO2 creating global warming. After they got into the details, contradictions appeared. Instead of back-tracking and saying they were wrong, they faked the results.

Part of the problem is the piecemeal way in which the complexities are studied. Each detail is studied apart from complex influences. The real results are not the same when everything is combined.

For example, they say that it all begins with Hansen's fudge factor. In a laboratory spectrophotometer, the fudge factor is a valid starting point. But when the complexities of the atmosphere are added, the starting point becomes irrelevant.

The fudge factor is this: Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase.

In a glass tube in a laboratory, this equation is simple. It says each molecule of CO2 will absorb so much radiation and convert it into heat as molecular vibration. Increasig the CO2 increases the heat.

The first problem in the atmosphere is that the radiation runs out quite rapidly. No more radiation is left after ten meters (Heinz Hug). Even if the ten meters is wrong, some other number will do the same thing. It means the radiation gets used up. All scientists know this and agree.

Using up the radiation is called saturation. Trouble immediately begins due to the terminology. There is no sharp line to tell when or where saturation occurs. It's a sloppy term. Instead, the concept should be that the distance radiation will travel depends upon how many carbon dioxide molecules are absorbing it. There is always some distance to be considered, and there is no line saying when it should be called saturation.

The fudge factor says that increasing the CO2 will increase the heat. This only occurs in a tube in the laboratory, where saturation is not occurring. After the radiation gets used up, adding more CO2 cannot produce more heat. Because the heat is in the radiation. When the radiation is used up, the heat is used up. This occurs in 10 meters in the atmosphere (at ground level pressure).

How then can more CO2 add more heat to the atmosphere. It can't, but climatologists get rationalistic. So we will compare their rationalisms to the laws of physics.

The primary rationalism of climatologists is that raidation does not all get used up on the shoulders of the absorption curves. Here's what this means: Carbon dioxide absorbs three narrow bands of "fingerprint" radiation. These bands cover 8% of the total bandwidth for infrared radiation in the atmosphere.

The primary band for CO2 looks like this:

graph

The shape of the line follows the number of molecules which are absorbing radiation. There are fewer CO2 molecules on the shoulders, because they have to have an unsual energy state due to stretching.

At the center of the main peak for CO2 (15 micro meters), all radiation is absorbed within 10 meters in the atmosphere. In other words, at 11 meters, no more radiation at that frequency can be found. But change the frequency a little, and less absorption occurs.

At about 14.7 µm, absorption is one tenth, and radiation goes 100 meters to be completely absorbed. More distance is required, because fewer CO2 molecules have the stretched shape which absorbs at that wavelength.

At about 14.1 µm, radiation goes 1,000 meters, which means still saturated. At about 14.0 µm, radiation goes 10 kilometers. Is that saturation? Upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance is half (5 km). Is reducing the distance from 10 km to 5 km increasing the near-surface temperature? Not really. This is a miniscule amount of heat spread over 5 km of height.

Yet climatologists are saying they find the greenhouse effect (which is supposedly killing polar bears) on the shoulders of the absorption peaks (Heinz hug). It's faker, rationalism and fraud.

Why Shoulder Effects are Miniscule

The assumption that shoulder effects are where global warming occurs is greatly in error. The real quantities involved are ridiculously small for the following reasons: Using the example of about 14.1 µm, where there are 1/100 as many CO2 molecules, the distance increases from 10 meters to 1,000 meters for complete absorption of available radiation (ignoring atmosphere getting thinner to make simple points). Doubling the CO2 reduces this distance to 500 meters.

 
 

           
 
gbwm