NOV 79

temperature curve

  global Warming      
Other Factors are the Cause
Radiative Transfer Equations

Gary Novak
Independent Scientist

Science Home

Alphabetical Page List

Trapping Heat

Dilution Factor

Underlying Science

Chatty Description

Temperature Effects

Equilibrium in Atmosphere

Radiative Transfer Equations

Fudge Factor


Greenhouse Gas Mathematics

Temperature Measurements

Recent History


Firing Scientists

Acid in the Oceans

Heinz Hug Measurement

Methane is Weaker

Changing Weather

Oceans not Rising

Heating 2,500C

Natural Log Curve

Published not as Science

Fake Ice Core Data

Ice Melt Fraud

Future Ice Age

"Delicate Balance" Fraud

Heat-Trapping Gases

Back Radiation is Absurd

The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate


Second Climategate


The Disputed Area

Zone of Emission Fraud

Errors in Claims

IPCC Propaganda

The 30% Fraud

The 41% Fraud

The Water Vapor Fraud

Humidity Fraud

River, not Window

Hockey Stick Graph

CO2 Charlatanism

A Fake Mechanism

220x10-12 °C

Global Dynamic

Long Wave Infrared Radiation

What about Argo

Forcing Error

The Concept of Distance

Harry_Read_Me Files

Meaning of Hacked Files


A Look at Modeling 

Conduction Heat


Global Warming Home Page


Global Warming Contrived Through Fake Science

The Underlying Science of Global Warming is Fakery

List of Proofs:

1. Heat cannot be trapped in the atmosphere.

2. Dilution of 2,500 reduces to nothing.

3. Claimed earth radiation of 79% is like white hot metals.

4. Air has no heat capacity for heating oceans or melting ice.

5. Fake temperature measurements conceal small amount of heating.

6. Calculations started at the desired end point to get fake results.

Of the heat in the atmosphere, 99.76% gets there through other means than carbon dioxide. The remaining 0.24% is irrelevant. It will do whatever the other 99.76% does.  Read More

CO2 Graph

Explanations of Six Proofs


There is no such thing as greenhouse gases, because there is no such thing as trapping heat in the atmosphere. Absorbed radiation is re-emitted in femto seconds

This miniscule nonresult must be divided by 2,500, because surrounding molecules dilute it that much. There are 2,500 air molecules surrounding each CO2 molecule when carbon dioxide is at 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Therefore, to heat the air 1C, each CO2 molecule would have to be 2,500Can impossibility.

Global warming is such a preposterous assumption that reasonable scientists rejected the subject until recently. Now, science is so corrupt that global warming errors prevail. The claimed 97% agreement is total contrivance. Scientists are not allowed to express opinions in peer reviewed publications, where the fake 97% number was derived through guessing and then published as peer reviewed science. The breakdown used to be 50-50, and would still be, but critics of global warming are now getting shoved out of science, so they conceal their views. Science by terrorism shows who is producing the corruption.

All matter emits infrared radiation in proportion to its temperature due to molecules vibrating. Each vibration is a wave of infrared radiation being emitted. It's not a lot of energy, but the amount of fingerprint radiation absorbed by CO2 is even less.

Infrared radiation emitted by all matter is called black body radiation. The amount is determined by temperature, as supposedly indicated by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Eight percent of the black body bandwidth is absorbed by CO2.

     black body radiation spectrum

All heat is the same. Why isn't it all trapped? Conduction, convection and evaporation put most heat into the atmosphere. It dissipates into space at the same rate it enters from the sun, called equilibrium. Claiming CO2 absorption is different is unscientific.

Incompetents in science imagined global warming and contrived unreal science to get there. Climate is too complex and random for the tools of science. The science is total fakery. Physics evolved toward fakery for the same reason. Physical effects are so abstract, complex and intertwined that physicists cannot unravel the complexities.

At the engineering level, you simply try to find repeatable patterns which allow products to be reproduced. So physicists take that approach. It might be called super engineering; but it is not science. To make it science, the unknowns are filled in with contrivance. Over time, the corruption gets compounded until it becomes an alternative to real science.

Real scientists do not go down the path climatologists follow pretending to measure complexities and randomness which cannot be measured. A measurement requires that all influences over the results be identified and separated from other influences. Climate has too many interacting complexities to do that.

For these reasons, there is nothing resembling real science to the subject of global warming. Science is a process, not a conclusion. Conclusions come out of a dark pit in global warming science. Fake procedures are claimed, with no explanation or logical purpose. Necessary scientific standards are defied in extreme ways attempting to contrive a subject without accountability.

Conservative critics of global warming have been saying that the underlying science is correct, but global warming is not occurring because of the effects of clouds. They haven't looked at the underlying science, because they dont understand it. Their position has left society with no significant criticism of the basic science of global warming. As a result, criticism is brushed off claiming that it is disproven and needs to stop. Conversely, nothing has been shown to be correct in the science. The burden of proof should be on the scientists, not the critics.

One reason for this situation is that hired scientists cannot be significantly critical without being kicked out of science or being denied grants or the ability to publish. There is a long list of scientists who met that fate. (Firing Scientists) This practice alone is a major fraud upon the public. How can science (or anything else) be right, when no one is allowed to criticize it? Truth benefits from criticism. The opposition to criticism points to an unjustifiable position.

Criticism is stymied by an absence of validly published research. Research publications on climatology lack the necessary descriptions of methodology. Key information needed for evaluation is omitted in an attempt to obfuscate the subject. Without proper publications, the only way criticism can be produced is to draw upon 500 years of evolved knowledge and show that the conclusions are self-contradictory impossibilities.

Most scientists are not aware of the frauds at the origins of global warming science. Scientists are so specialized and wrapped up in their narrowly defined subjects that they cannot spend much time looking into the large amount of related material. It took me decades of detective work as an independent scientist to determine the nature of the frauds at the origins of global warming science.

A flat-earther is supposedly someone who can't understand that absorption of radiation means heat. Five hundred years of science has produced a lot more knowledge than that. After absorption, then what? These proofs explain the rest of the science.

Here are six proofs of science fraud at the origins of global warming.

1. Trapping Heat

The term "heat trapping gas" is scientific fraud. Heat cannot be trapped, because it is too dynamic. It flows into and out of the atmosphere in femto seconds. Almost all heat leaves the earth from the atmosphere, not the ground.

All matter is constantly losing heat through radiation. Heat is vibration of molecules. Each vibration of a molecule in the air is a wave of radiation being emitted. There are typically 83 femto seconds per vibration (at 25 microns wavelength). About five vibrations removes absorbed radiation. Five vibrations occur in 415 femto seconds. That's half of a pico second. A half of a pico second for holding heat is not trapping heat.

The amount of heat entering from the sun during the day is the amount that leaves during the night. A miniscule amount is not going to get trapped while the rest radiates into space.

pickle jarA jar of pickles absorbs radiation, but it doesn't heat the kitchen. If pickles don't trap heat in a jar, CO2 won't trap heat in the atmosphere.

The claim by some scientists that heat cannot enter the atmosphere without greenhouse gases is another fraud. Most heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation. It takes a few hours for the heat to be emitted into space, because radiation is extremely weak compared to conduction, convection and evaporation.

Re-emission of radiation does not result in a cold atmosphere, because this effect is miniscule and riding on top of normal temperatures created through conduction, convection and evaporation.

Absorbed radiation (fingerprint radiation) is weaker than emitted radiation (black body radiation), because 8% of black body radiation is fingerprint radiation for these conditions. Background Overwhelm

2. Dilution Factor

water bucketClimatologists skipped over the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air molecules around each CO2 molecule (400 parts per million CO2). Therefore, each CO2 molecule would have to be 2,500C to heat the air 1Can impossibility. Fakes in science missed it by 2,499C. There cannot be greenhouse gases creating global warming for this reason.

If a brick building has 2,500 bricks, heating one brick won't heat the building.

In such dynamic systems rates of heat addition require proportionalities due to continuous change.

3. White Hot Metals

The amount of energy given off by the surface of the earth is claimed to be 79% radiation and 21% conduction and vaporization. White hot metals could not emit 79% radiation under atmospheric conditions. The real proportion would be 1-3% radiation. Reducing the radiation by a factor of 40 would reduce the calculated global warming by a factor of 40. white.html

4. Heat Capacity

The air has too little heat capacity to warm ocean water or melt Arctic ice. Twelve-year-olds were supposed to learn what heat capacity is, but physicists didn't.

To heat oceans with air requires a ratio of 3483 by volume for same temperatures. The heat capacity for air is 1.2 kj/m/C, while for water it is 4180 kj/m/C. To heat the oceans 0.2C to a depth of 350 meters would require air losing 0.2C to a height of 1,219 kilometers (at constant surface pressure). That's 100 atmospheres. The oceans cannot be heated by the atmosphere.

Melting ice with air is even more absurd, as an additional "heat of fusion" is required, which is 334 kj/kg, which is an additional 278,000 m of air per C per m of ice. In other words, air in contact with ice sucks the heat out of the air with no effect upon the ice. With a small amount of ice and a lot of air, the cool air gets replace with warm air, but on a global scale, the replacing does not occur. It means ice melting has nothing to do with global warming.

The Arctic is warming due to warm Pacific Ocean water flowing over the Bering Strait, not a miniscule air temperature increase. With the recent El Nino, the northern Pacific Ocean is warming causing warm water to flow over the Bering Strait to heat the Arctic and melt Arctic ice.

5. Temperature Measurements are Fake

Not only are humans not the cause of global warming, a temperature increase did not actually occur. The temperature measurements were faked. The original data shows no temperature increase over the past 35 years at least, while contrivers lowered earlier measurements and increased recent measurements to show a false increase. Critics have been studying these fabrications for the past six years and found endless examples. Satellite measurements have shown no significant temperature increase since they began making such measurements in the late seventies. Only satellite measurements are suitable for the purpose of climatology, because they average over a wide area and cover everything, while land-based measurements cover about 10% of the earth and have no standards for cross-comparisons or uniformity.

A Recent Summary of Temperature Falsifications by Steven Goddard

6. Starting at the End-Point

For a mechanism, climatologists used radiative transfer equations to supposedly show 3.7 watts per square meter less radiation leaving the planet than entering from the sun due to carbon dioxide. There can never be a difference between energy inflow and outflow beyond minor transitions because of equilibrium, as climatologists recognize. Yet they claim the 3.7 w/m is a permanent representation of global warming upon doubling CO2. This number is supposed to result in 1C near-surface temperature increase as the primary effect by CO2. However, watts per square meter are units of rate, while rates produce continuous change, not a fixed 1C. The 1C was supposedly produced by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, but reversing it is not valid. (Secondary effects supposedly triple the 1C to 3C.)

It means climatologists started at the desired end point of 1C and applied the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in the forward direction to the get the 3.7 w/m attributed to radiative transfer equations. Radiative transfer equations cannot produce any such number, because radiation leaves from all points in the atmosphere with 15-30% going around greenhouse gases. That dynamic, combined with equilibrium, is beyond scientific quantitation.

The 3.7 Watts Per Square Meter Fraud


All life is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of carbon dioxide in the air, which is needed for photosynthesis. The oceans nearly absorbed all carbon dioxide from the air 300 million years ago. In the nick of time, volcanoes replaced some of it, but they died down, and now the CO2 is almost gone again. carb.html

 The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them.

 Changing weather is controlled by mysterious ocean effects, not greenhouse gases.

 Temperature effects are not additive; they are in dynamic equilibrium.

 The climate is too random and complex for scientific measurement of the claims being made.

 Temperatures cannot be calculated, they can only be measured, which eliminates all claims of global warming science.

 Real scientists determined a century ago, and ever since, that saturation precludes global warming by greenhouse gases. Alarmist scientists reduced saturation to irrelevance and contrived a result without it.


 Global warming rests on fake calculations with radiative transfer equations to get around saturation. Saturation cannot be erased, as it is easily measured and precludes the whole subject of greenhouse gases creating global warming.

 Calculations produce a fudge factor as the primary effect by CO2, and it is said to represent an unquestionable law of physics, even though the world's largest computers were needed to derive it, since it involved all of the complexities of radiation in the atmosphere, and then required additional modeling to account for clouds absorbing radiation.

    5.35ln2 = 3.7 w/m = 1C.

 Temperature effects in the atmosphere are too complex to measure. Supposedly satellites measure atmospheric temperature, but they cannot overcome the complexities with depth in the atmosphere, and satellite measurements were not allowed to contradict thermometer measurements for near surface temperatures representing global warming.


Methane is not a Stronger Greenhouse Gas. It absorbs in a shorter distance, which does nothing to increase heat.

What is being called stronger is absorption of radiation in a shorter distance.


Methane Math. The molecules non-saturating molecules are spread so thin that they cannot produce heat. Simple math shows 0.85 mm between each CO2 molecule which supposedly adds heat, and 26 mm (one inch) between each methane molecule which adds heat. There are 4 million air molecules between each of such CO2 molecules.

Temperatures are Fabricated. There is no global warming. temp graphTemperature measurements were manipulated to show a false increase. Satellite measurements showed very little increase but were manipulated to support fabricated land-based measurements.

There was an effect between 1980 and 1998, but it was oceans warming, not the atmosphere. Warm oceans increased precipitation. Now, oceans are cooling back down, and droughts are the result.

The claim of 97% of scientists agreeing is total fraud, mainly because any scientist who disagrees is not allowed to get grants or publish. (See How the Firing Works) It shows the coercion and intimidation in science. Then the supposed determination of 97% was totally subjective, as no scientists make such a claim.

Warming around the Arctic is cyclic due to warm ocean currents flowing over the Arctic. It lasted for 20 years, and now the Arctic is freezing back up.

"Delicate balance" is total stupidity. There is an immense shortage of CO2 in the air for plant growth. Photosynthesis evolved on 20 times as much CO2. Who could survive on one twentieth the nutrients they evolved on.

Volcanoes put 2.3% as much CO2 into the air as humans every year (gov source). If CO2 could accumulate, the volcanic amount in 43 years would equal the human amount for one year. Volcanoes have been doing it for 5 billion years, and humans for only 150 years. The supposed total amount of human accumulation (240 GT) is put into the atmosphere by volcanoes every 1,200 years. See Delicate Balance Fraud

Where does the volcanic CO2 go, if the human amount accumulates? If it is acidifying the oceans, why didn't volcanoes acidify the oceans many times over? See Acid in the Ocean Fraud


Some Data

"Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year (giga tons of carbon per year). A recent update says 8.6 GT.

"To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C."

Notice that the oceans exchange ten times as much carbon with the atmosphere as humans produce (90GT vs. 8.6 GT). Exchange means regulation. And humans only add 1% as much CO2 to the atmosphere per year as already in it. If such a miniscule amount were as critical as propagandists claim, all life would have been destroyed long ago. Nature hasn't been sitting on a 1% knife edge for millions of years.

   Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

External Links:
   Isherwood - Perpsective and Quotes
   Climate Physics - Ed Berry
   Railroaded Science - By Richard Lindzen
   Jaworowski: critic of ice core measurements
   Heat in Earth's Interior
   El Nino and CO2
   Political Criticism. May 24, 2006
   Historical Summary
   Raw Data on CO2 in Air
   CO2 Criticisms—Segalstad

1. Charney, J. G., Arakawa, A., Baker, D., Bolin, B., Dickerso, R., Goody, R., Leith, C., Stommel, H.M. & Wunsch, C.I. 1979 Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC. National Academy of Sciences Press.

2. Ramanathan, V., M.S. Lian, and R.D. Cess, 1979. Increased Atmospheric CO2: Zonal and Seasonal Estimates of the Effect on the Radiation energy Balance and Surface Temperature. J. Geophys. Res. 84:4949-4958.

3. Hansen, J., A. Cacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984. CLIMATE SENSITIVITY: ANALYSIS OF FEEDBACK MECHANISMS. Geophys. Mono. 29:130-163.

4. Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Llacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone, 1988. Global Climate Changes as Forcast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Three Dimensional Model. J. Geophys. Res. 93:9341-9364.

5. Myhre, G., E.J. Highwood, K.P. Shine, and F. Stordal, 1998. New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25:2715-2718.


Find Images


Quick Tutorial through Images


Charney et al, 1979

Ramanathan et al, 1979

Hansen et al, 1984

Hansen et al, 1988

Myhre et al, 1998

Gray, 1999

IPCC, AR3, 1.3.1, 2001