global Warming          
  Oceans are heating,
  not the atmosphere

  atm stable since 1998
  What about Argo       
Earth Needs More CO2
Background Science Explained
Gary Novak
Independent Scientist

Global Warming:
Crunching the Numbers
Absorption Spectra
Oceans not Rising
Future Ice Age
Acid in the Oceans

News, Opinions, More
On Links Page

Summary in Simple Words


Fake Equations—Fudge Factor

Back Radiation is Absurd

Equilibrium in Atmosphere

The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate


Second Climategate

Thermometer Fraud

The Disputed Area

IPCC Propaganda

The Water Vapor Fraud

The 41% Fraud

The 30% Fraud

CO2 Charlatanism

A Fake Mechanism

Global Dynamic

"Delicate Balance" Fraud

Heinz Hug Measurement

Hockey Stick Graph

River, not Window




Satellite Measurements Show "Forcing" Error

Modelers such as James Hansen theorize that the primary cause of global warming is a multiplying factor called forcing. In other words, carbon dioxide will supposedly heat the planet a small amount, and then the increased heat will be multiplied due to more water vapor entering the atmosphere. Increasing the heat through a secondary effect is called positive forcing, and reducing the heat is called negative forcing.

In a recent publication (July 14, 2009. Geophysical Research Letters), Lindzen and Choi evaluated satellite measurements of radiation emitted into space with comparisons to sea surface temperature. They found that as sea surface temperatures increase, more radiation is emitted rather than less. Positive feedback theorized less radiation would be emitted, since more would be trapped.

Lindzen and Choi show a negative feedback (forcing) rather than positive. Since the increase in radiation was short-wave, it points to sunlight reflected off increased clouds, though the data does not indicate the cause. Modelers theorized a reduction in long-wave radiation due to increased water vapor absorbing more radiation.

To put this subject into perspective, this study adds a tidbit of evidence to the common sense and science of the subject which show that the theory of modelers is absurd to a point of fraud. Common sense indicates that if slight increases in temperature could be multiplied (A factor of 3 to 6 is often assumed by modelers.) thermal runaway would occur, and the climate would have locked at maximum or minimum temperature a long time ago due to natural temperature influences.

There is also a scientific fraud in applying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to the gaseous atmosphere, when it is only applicable to solid surfaces (and is not accurate for that). The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says so much radiation is given off by a surface at a given temperature. But gasses do not have a surface. They radiate from all points within them, which promotes far more radiation than occurs with solids.

Since the atmosphere is cooled by radiation from all points within it, cooling occurs throughout the atmosphere. But this is only possible if the radiation is not blocked by greenhouse gasses, or if it is only blocked over such a long distance that only one or two cycles of absorption and re-emission occurs. I theorize that nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the atmosphere, absorb and re-emit for two cycles (perhaps traveling 10 kilometers the first cycle, depending upon wavelength), but I have not seen data on this. Extremely dilute greenhouse gasses would have a similar effect.

The point is that this dynamic of widespread radiation cools the atmosphere over its entire height. Climatologists assume otherwise. They assume that the cooling of the atmosphere is due to expansion of the gas. But expansion requires convection. Convection in the atmosphere is extremely limited and erratic and does not explain the temperature gradient. At atmospheric scale there is very little mixing of air, as demonstrated by heat inversions, where cold air will overlay warmer air. So convection cannot explain the temperature gradient with height in the atmosphere.

Based on these two errors—inappropriate use of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and false assumptions about convection—climatologists assume there is a zone high in the atmosphere where all of the radiation is emitted for cooling the planet. When viewing these questions in an open and rational way, could not any idiot see that the climatologists have to be wrong? If all of the cooling were occurring in a narrow zone high in the atmosphere, how does the rest of the planet get cooled? What keeps the narrow zone from getting extremely cold before other areas are cooled? After the initial cooling of the narrow zone, would not the temperature change cause the zone to shift changing the location of the emitting point, sort of like a zipper moving the emission point lower? But since convection is poor, the whole process would stop as the assumed zone got colder.

Lindzen and Choi do not correct the underlying theory, they simply measure the resulting error. They state: "To see what one particular difficulty is, consider the following conceptual situation: We instantaneously double CO2. This will cause the characteristic emission level to rise to a colder level with an associated diminution of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). The resulting radiative imbalance is what is generally referred to as radiative forcing."

They refer to the absurd emission zone as "the characteristic emission level," as if it actually existed. The zone supposedly moves upward as greenhouse gasses trap more heat below it.

The zone is assumed to be about 5 kilometers of height in the atmosphere, because that is where the temperature is usually -19°C or -2°F. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says a surface will emit 235 watts per square meter at -19°C, and the earth must emit an average of 235 W/m² to get rid of the amount of heat that the sun adds to the earth.

Lindzen and Choi. July 14, 2009. Geophysical Research Letters - (750Kb, PDF)

Stefan-Boltzmann Constant