temperature graph   global Warming      
 Fudge Factor Replaces Science 
 Saturation Precludes 
Gary Novak

Global Warming Home

Alphabetical Page List

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


Natural Log Curve of the Fudge Factor


     fudge factor curve

The fudge factor is a simplified representation of the results of the radiative transfer equations. It's a natural log curve. Why is it a natural log curve? There are no natural logs in the cause-and-effect relationships in nature.

Natural log is a mathematical abstraction resulting from calculus manipulations. It exists nowhere in nature. Yet it is used to represent the rate of depletion of fingerprint radiation for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Why?

The only answer to why is that it is a total contrivance. The first reason why the fudge factor is a contrivance is because it erases almost all saturation. Direct measurements show saturation within a short distance, which means the saturation cannot be removed through mathematical manipulation. Yet it was, which shows that the fudge factor is nothing but a contrivance.

Also showing that the fudge factor is a contrivance is the use of natural log to represent it, when there are no natural logs in nature. Even if natural log were a good fit for the results of the radiative transfer equations, it is not appropriate to use natural log for a good fit, because doing so says there is an exactitude where there is none. Representing approximations with exactitudes is not appropriate in science, as it misrepresents inaccuracies. Inaccuracies need to be studied in science, which means they are not supposed to be erased by replacing them with exactitudes.

No scientist should make such an error. Real scientists never do, as they are always mindful of the degree of inaccuracy. But this error is not an oversight, it is a total contrivance.

If an actual measurement were being made, some exponent should have been used instead of natural log. But doing so would have raised the question of where the exponent came from and how accurate it is. Replacing the exponent with natural log erases the question of where the exponent came from, as if some law of nature fell out of the computer data.

When Steve McIntyre and his discussion group attempted to determine where the natural log curve came from, no source could be located. It first showed up in the publications of James Hansen et al during the eighties. They cited the source as a publication of one of their co-workers (Lacis), but the citation did not check out.