|
|
Gary Novak
The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate |
Heating the Atmosphere Conduction versus Radiation
Most heat moves from the surface of the earth to the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation. A major fraud is the claim that only radiation moves heat from the surface of the earth into the atmosphere.  The most promoted claim by nonscientists is that nothing but greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere. Built upon this absurdity is the claim that 33°C temperature increase resulted from greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even some scientists make these claims, while most do not. These claims overwhelm the subject for nonscientists, as fraud tends to do. Often, the only claims or analysis made is this. There is no need for nonscientists to go farther after "knowing" this. Yet the absurdity is so obvious that most scientists do not make these assumptions. Most heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction, which has nothing to do with greenhouse gases. Climatologists recognize the role of conduction, though they lie about the quantity.
All The Same Heat When radiation from the surface of the earth strikes greenhouse gases, it does the same thing as heat conducted from the surface. So greenhouse gases are not the only way to heat the atmosphere, as alarmists assume. Conduction will do it. Alarmists generally refuse to consider the rest of the subject, because their starting error supposedly makes the entire subject irrelevant. They generally will not go past this point, because supposedly, there is no way to get heat into the atmosphere without "greenhouse gases." Since they are wrong, the rest of the subject becomes relevant. If there is no way to get heat into the atmosphere but greenhouse gases, then greenhouse gases are everything. Scientists know that conduction puts heat into the atmosphere, and they argue over trivia. But nonscientist, alarmists don't know that trivia is what scientists argue over, because they assume greenhouse gases are everything in heating the atmosphere. In fact, a lot of scientists who should know better assume that only greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere, as they claim there would be no heat added to the atmosphere without greenhouse gases. Incompetent scientists do not remove contradictions from their assumptions. After getting past the starting point, there are numerous additional errors on the subject. One major error is the assumption that heat is additive when greenhouse gases are additive, as if every molecule of a greenhouse gas adds more heat. This error misses the equilibration effect. All heat equilibrates due to the second law of thermodynamics, which says heat dissipates. It means the temperature of the atmosphere reaches an equilibrium, where heat inflow equals heat outflow. The equilibrium temperature is independent of how heat gets into the atmosphere. The equilibrium temperature will be the same with or without greenhouse gases. Equilibrium occurs regardless of greenhouse gases, because the planet is cooled by radiation which goes around the greenhouse gases. Innumerable other errors are described elsewhere on this web site.
They are saying that greenhouse gases increased the temperature of the atmosphere by 33°C (59°F) and that nothing else adds heat to the atmosphere. That's where the -18°C comes from. It comes from the Stefan-Boltzmann constant being applied to the earth's surface. It says that the 235 watts per square meter leaving the surface will do so at -19°C (UCS said -18°C, which was off by one degree). Therefore, they are attributing all increase to greenhouse gases, and they are omitting any effect due to conduction adding heat to the atmosphere. They didn't know that conduction adds heat to the atmosphere. How could any scientist get that wrong? Later, the UCS took this statement off their web site, but by then it had been reproduced on numerous alarmists web sites, and the number 33°C which it represents is found often in the claims by alarmists. In fact, it looks like the UCS got these concepts, perhaps exact quotes, from published science. Published science is nothing resembling what it used to be, because fraud has overtaken science. Alarmists will site such statements including many from the IPCC as if they were unquestionable facts. The entire concept and methodology of the IPCC is so fraudulent that only idiots would consider it to be fact. I show on my web site hundreds of examples of supposed facts by scientists which are so fraudulent that the persons should not be called scientists. But that is only half the problem. Alarmists will quote each other claiming to cite peer reviewed science, when it is nothing but contrivance with no relationship to anything any scientist has ever said. There are human responsibilities involved. Everyone has a responsibility to be accountable for what they say. If they don't understand a subject, they aren't supposed to be forcing it onto others. When claims are made, evidence and explanations are supposed to be given, so we can correct errors. If it isn't correctable, it's fraud. It's a truism that alarmists are not producing responsible and correctable statements, or they would have gotten their errors corrected by now. They are not making proper statements, when correctable explanations are not included. Explanations are never included, not the least reason being that alarmists are clueless on the science. The problem is standards of honesty. Persons who make statements without explanations are not producing honest communication, and they are always wrong. It takes higher standards than they produce to be right. What this means is, in about one sentence, a person should be able to determine the validity of any statement. Being wrong is not being invalid. Not producing sufficient explanations to get to the truth is what invalid means. I've never seen an alarmist produce a valid statement to justify the claims being made. The most obvious fact about global warming alarmism is that the persons involved operate at such perverse standards that they couldn't care whether they are right. For example, when I try to explain the science of the subject to them on their web sites, they call me a troll and kick me off their web site without correcting their errors.
|
 |
