|
|
Gary Novak
The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate |
Introduction Global Warming not Caused by CO2
Modern global warming science began in 1979 with the publication of Charney et al (1) in response to a request from a U.S. governmental office to create a study group for answering questions about global warming. Charney et al modeled atmospheric effects and drew the conclusion that the average earth temperature would increase by about 3°C upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Charney et al did not have a known mechanism for global warming to base their modeling on. Their publication was total fakery stating deliberate absurdities, such as modeling "horizontal diffusive heat exchange," which doesn't exist. In 1984 and 1988, Hansen et al (2,3) did similar modeling but added a concept for heat produced by carbon dioxide, which they derived from assumed history. Over the previous century, a temperature increase of 0.6°C was assumed to have been caused by an increase in CO2 of 100 parts per million in the atmosphere. Their modeling then had the purpose of determining secondary effects, primarily caused by an assumed increase in water vapor. In other words, a primary effect was based upon the historical record, while secondary effects were modeled. This is the approach taken to this day, while refinements are developed. There were major problems in using history for the primary effect. Firstly, the historical effect included secondary effects which could not be separated out, and no attempt was made to do so. This means the assumed primary effect included secondary effects. Secondly, there was no place for other effects in attributing the entire history to CO2. Therefore, an attempt to determine the primary effect was made by Myhre et al in 1998 (4) by using radiative transfer equations. Those equations only show the rate of depletion of radiation as the concentration of a gas increases. They say nothing about heat. An impossibly complex analysis would be required to evaluate the resulting heat, but no such analysis was mentioned in the publication by Myhre et al. Even worse, Myhre et al added more atmospheric modeling in determining the primary effect including the effects of clouds. These publications cannot be viewed as honest. They lack a consistent logic and fabricate conclusions with no scientific method at arriving at such conclusions. Furthermore, these publications are not science as the acquisition of evidence, since modeling is the projection of assumptions with no method of acquiring evidence. Modeling may be a tool for sociologists and politicians but has no place in science. Science attempts to verify through reproducible evidence, while modeling is nothing but an expression of opinions with no new evidence being acquired. Even after Myhre et al supposedly determined the primary effect (said to be 5.35 times the natural log of final carbon dioxide concentration divided by prior concentration—a three component fudge factor) there was no known mechanism for carbon dioxide (or any greenhouse gas) creating global warming. In 2001, three years after Myhre et al's publication, the IPCC described the mechanism this way: "Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band’s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation..." (5) Saturation means all available radiation gets used up. Heinz Hug stated in his publication (6) that saturation occurs in 10 meters at the center of the absorption curve for the 15µm band. On the shoulders of the absorption curves are molecules which have stretched bonds causing them to absorb at slightly altered wavelength. It is supposedly these molecules which do the heating for greenhouse gases, because they do not use up all available radiation; and therefore, more of the gases absorbs more radiation. Scientists said that 5% of the CO2 molecules were effective on the shoulders for creating global warming. This roughly means that radiation would travel 20 times farther before being absorbed. But 20 times 10 meters is only 200 meters. Air mixes in such a short distance, which means there is no temperature change. Absorbing radiation in 200 meters is no different than absorbing it in 10 meters. In other words, the 5% claim was nothing but a fake statement for rationalizing. The shamelessness and gall of making up this subject on whim and then claiming it is science is unprecedented. Real scientists are not that way. Since this mechanism would not stand up to criticism, scientists changed their mind about the mechanism about five years ago and said the real mechanism occurs about 9 kilometers up in the atmosphere. (The normal atmosphere, troposphere, goes up about 17 km average.) Trivial rationalizations were used, mainly that the absorption bands get narrower at lower air pressure, so they don't overlap with water vapor. There are two major problems with the analysis for 9 km up. One, there is not much space left for adding heat. And two, the temperature increase required for radiating the heat back down to the surface is at least 24°C up there for each 1°C increase near the surface—not accounting for oceans. Oceans will absorb the heat for centuries or millennia, which means 70% of the heat disappears during human influences. So the total would need to be 80°C at 9 km up to create the claimed 1°C near ground level. No temperature increase has been detected at 9 km up due to carbon dioxide. Notice that the fakes didn't have a mechanism and didn't know where it was occurring 30 years after the first models were constructed in 1979 (said to be only off by 15%) and 10 years after the fudge factor was contrived for pinning down the primary effect, which the mechanism is supposed to represent. How could they get the primary effect (fudge factor) without knowing whether it was occurring at ground level or 9 km up? Why do nonscientists assume it is self-evident that greenhouse gases create global warming, when scientists cannot describe a mechanism? Extreme over-simplification appears to be the reason. They assume that absorbing radiation is producing heat. Guess what. A jar of pickles absorbs radiation but it doesn’t heat the kitchen. Total heat effects are complex, and they equilibrate. What really happens is that the planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Cooling results in an equilibrium temperature which is independent of how heat gets into the atmosphere. It means greenhouse gases have no influence upon the temperature of the planet. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is so low that all biology is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of CO2 which is needed for photosynthesis. There was twenty times as much CO2 in the atmosphere when modern photosynthesis evolved. Oceans continuously absorb CO2 and convert it into calcium carbonate and limestone. The calcium never runs out, and the pH of the oceans never drops below 8.1 for this reason. It's the pH which calcium carbonate buffers at. If not, why hasn't four billion years been long enough to get there?
It's Not Science The subject of climatology is not handled the way science is handled. It's totally subjective. The degree of subjectivity is not appropriate at the journalistic and political level, let alone the scientific level. At the scientific level, the descriptions, data manipulations and conclusions are totally subjective. Real scientists go to much effort to remove subjectivity from their science; physicists and climatologists go to much effort to strip objective information from their science. It's not accidental. Their degree of fraud will not stand up to scrutiny, so they conceal it in total subjectivity. It's scientific Nazism—telling us what we have to believe instead of why. People need to know what is happening to their energy supplies and dollars. If sea creatures are responding to 0.2°C sea surface temperature increase, why didn't they do so earlier? Why weren't they all in the same place? Why were they defying the right temperature? If they moved a kilometer north or south, 99% of them would have ended up right where others were located previously. Producing the 0.2°C average sea surface temperature increase was standard operating procedure—total fraud. The Argo project placed 3,000 diving buoys in the oceans between 2003 and 2007 to measure average surface temperature. The first result showed slight cooling. So the coldest measurements were discarded, and the result showed no change. Somehow since then, the result became 0.2°C increase. No Real Mechanism There is no scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming, because the planet is cooled by radiation which goes around carbon dioxide, not through it. The temperature of the atmosphere equilibrates at about the same temperature regardless of how heat gets into the atmosphere. Most heat gets into the atmosphere by conduction from the surface, not radiation. Ice melting at the poles and Greenland is a major focus of promoters of the global warming scare. The atmosphere has no significant ability to influence the melting of polar ice. The heat capacity of the atmosphere is one thousandth that of the oceans. That means the atmosphere would have to change temperature by a thousand times as much as the oceans when transferring heat. If the atmosphere heated the top tenth of the oceans by 0.2°C, the atmosphere would have had to cool by 20°C. No cooling of the atmosphere has been accounted for due to oceans heating. I'm sure some scientist made such a calculation someplace; but where it matters, in calculating the primary effect of CO2, no cooling from the oceans is accounted for. The disconnect characterizes every element of climatology. Why weren't the ocean heat evaluaters correcting the false claims? They would have been couching their analysis in watts of heat obscuring the contradictions in temperature instead of correcting them. It takes 80 times as much heat to melt a gram of ice as it does to raise the temperature of a gram water by one degree. This means it would take about 70,000 cubic meters of atmosphere dropping 1°C to melt one cubic meter of ice. Global warming supposedly increased the near-surface temperature of the atmosphere 0.7°C. How much heat did it lose melting ice? Would the temperature have been 0.8°C, if no ice were melting? Ice melt has never been a factor mentioned in calculating the amount temperature increase CO2 should produce in the atmosphere. If all of the heat which supposedly created global warming were used to melt all of the Arctic ice, 7.25 atmospheres would be required. Yet all Arctic ice is supposed to be gone soon, and no change in air temperature is being attributed to the result. Only warm ocean water has the ability to melt sea ice. Modern scientists don't know this. It shows that the problem is not a scientific dispute. The problem is scientific Nazism being forced onto society by incompetent persons who are promoting motives. Oceans warm between ice ages, which occur every 100 thousand years. The next ice age is scheduled to begin at any time, as this chart shows:
Climatologists divide the greenhouse effect into two sections, primary and secondary. The primary effect of CO2 is the amount of temperature increase caused by increasing the number of CO2 molecules. The secondary effect is temperature increase due to feedback effects, mostly assumed to result from increased water vapor in the air. The terms sensitivity and forcing are used, but these terms are scrambled in every way possible. You have to guess at the meaning from the context. The primary effect is brushed off with the derisive claim that a number for it is "easy to produce and undisputed." We are never told where it came from or how it is calculated. It is calculated from a three component fudge factor, which is sometimes said to originate with Hansen et al, 1988, but in fact it originates with Myhre et al, 1998. It says, Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase. For doubling CO2, it's 3.7 Watts per square meter and 2.8°C. Nothing in climatology can be separated from complex influences allowing it to be represented by a three component equation. Even as a rough approximation, innumerable contradictions reduce it to fraud. Natural log (ln) is supposed to align the result upon a diminishing effect by carbon dioxide as it saturates. Saturation means the center of the main absorption peak absorbs all radiation available to it in about 10 meters. Doubling the amount of CO2 (the usual question) reduces the distance from 10 m to 5 meters. Is reducing the distance increasing the near-surface temperature? The heat does not change, only the distance does. But the distance is not relevant when that small. Any increase in heat closer to the surface is a decrease in heat up higher, while convectional currents rapidly mix all of the air involved. There is only a relative difference between the center and shoulders of the peaks. The 5% on the shoulders will allow radiation to travel 20 times as far before being completely absorbed. Twenty times 10 is 200 meters. Upon doubling the CO2, the distance is one half, or 100 m. Why is reducing the distance of absorption creating global warming? Air continues to circulate at 200 meters. If it didn't, the air would have to cool above 100 m to the extent that it warms below 100 m. Moving the heat downward so little would not create the storms being promoted as a scare tactic. Regardless of the distance, the amount of heat is approximately 5% of the total. The total increase is supposed to be 1°C upon doubling CO2. Five percent of 1°C is only 0.05°C. Yet global warming by CO2 was supposed to have created 14 times that amount of temperature increase, 0.7°C, and it hasn't doubled yet. Furthermore, 5% of the shoulders is supposed to be 5% of the CO2, not 5% of the heat. Those CO2 molecules are spread over 20 times as much distance. Spreading heat over distance reduces the temperature. So the 0.05°C needs to be reduced by 20 before, 10 after, which yields 0.005°C increase upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. This is the entire global warming effect by carbon dioxide. It doesn't exist. Why would 5% of three peaks be relevant, when there is no line at 5%? It's like saying an airplane flies because the wings are 5% of the mass. There has to be a lot more than that to the subject. In other words, the 5% number was thrown in as pure rationalization with no relation to the science of the subject. Yet it is the basis for claimed global warming. The numbers are not relevant due debased standards of operation. That's why global warming is often called politics or religion rather than science. This discrepancy is not a scientific error or disagreement. It's too contradictory to be science. The manner in which it is handled is too fraudulent to be a scientific error. Nowhere is there a realistic explanation of where the fudge factor came from or how the contradictions should be explained.
The number 3.7 watts per square meter shows that the fudge factor was used. In this case, the origins of the fudge factor are said to account for clouds, stratosphere and solar absorption. Not mentioned are oceans heating, polar ice melting, rates of emission from the atmosphere, equilibrium temperature, competing influences from other greenhouse gases, etc. These factors are variously studied and fed into computer models. But the primary effect is said to be "easy to calculate and undisputed." It sure is easy to plug numbers into the fudge factor, but there has to be some dispute over where it came from, when it includes everything in climatology. Here is the most important point on perspective: As the IPCC quote above indicates, climatologists supposedly have every question and answer refined to minute perfection. Yet the fudge factor is converted to temperature by multiplying by a conversion factor, which changed numerous times. It was initially 0.75, which equals 2.8°C. They found that this amount was not inline with previous temperature increases, so they reduced the conversion factor to 0.32 resulting in a primary effect (radiant forcing) of 1.2°C. Then they decided that one side of the main absorption peak overlaps with water vapor. So they reduced the total result by 1/6 (three peaks with 6 edges), which produced a conversion factor of 0.27 and yields 1°C.
Norm Kalmanovitch studied the fudge factor and concluded that it is an extension of the past into the future. How could it be anything other than that. After evaluating everything that influences air temperature, the number would be such a mess of confusion that looking at the past would be the only indication of what to expect. The fact that none of this is clarified, no matter how hard scientists look, means it is unequivocally not science. The central concern of science is to produce verifiable knowledge as a method of ending ignorance, witchcraft and fraud. The supposed science of this subject is a reversion back to witchcraft with authority which sorcerers never had. There is no way to pin down anything claimed by climatologists on this subject. Usually, such a wide sweeping claim would be ridiculous, but here it is not, the simple reason being that any true science would expose the rest as the fraud that it is and has long been eliminated from the subject. If global warming is not caused by CO2, is it caused by something else? The global average atmospheric temperature is not warming, as satellite measurements show, but land-based measurements have been falsified to show an increase. Oceans continually heat up between ice ages but at a slow rate. Many observed phenomena attributed to global warming are caused by oceans heating, at least on a regional level, because ocean surface temperatures change in drastic ways. Examples are Arctic ice melting, which can only result from warm Pacific ocean water flowing over the Bering Strait, not an increase in atmospheric temperature. Increased precipitation in various places, such as the Sahara Desert, is caused by increased surface temperature on some oceans. Increased ice in the center of Antarctica is due to increased precipitation resulting from surrounding ocean water being warmer. Between 1978 and 1998 the surface of the Pacific Ocean got warmer and produced dramatic effects upon the weather in the US. Rainfall increased, which moved the corn belt farther west into prairie grasslands. The increased moisture in the air created cooler summers and warmer winters. Precipitation in the atmosphere reflects sunlight producing significant cooling. Then in 1998, the surface of the Pacific Ocean started to cool again, and rainfall decreased, while summers got hotter and winters colder. This effect was regional. But at the same time, climatologists were promoting scare tactics, and less accountable persons were claiming every weather event was caused by carbon dioxide. The global average, near-surface atmospheric temperature was said to be climbing at an alarming rate. But it was all fakery. Earlier temperature measurements were lowered to show an artificial increase. The persons who did that will not tell other scientists how or why. So Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts reviewed the temperature data and concluded, "1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century. 2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends. 3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally. 4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting. 5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming. etc." Full Report at Science and Public Policy Org There has been no greenhouse gas induced global warming over recent centuries, and there is no greenhouse gas effect capable of producing global warming. What then is the meaning of 30 years of scientific study and social harping on a global warming effect that doesn't exist? This is the only thing simple about this subject—it's total fakery. You might think that science does not allow that much corruption. In physics, the fraud has been going on for 327 years, since Gottfried Leibniz proclaimed an erroneous definition of kinetic energy in 1686. There has not been an iota of physics produced since Newton's laws which has not been grossly in error. Climatology grew out of that culture of criminality. Citations: 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. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. IPCC, AR3, 2001: https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm 6. Hug, Heinz, 1998. The Climate Catastrophe - A Spectroscopic Artifact? http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#ten
|
 |
