The claim is sometimes made by alarmist non-scientists that saturation does not exist, and they refer to research which shows such. The research is supposed to be "empirical" proof that saturation does not exist for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It's not valid to disprove something so rock solid as saturation with research which is so whimsical. It's virtually impossible to not get saturation for greenhouse gases, because the line is so thin between non-existence of a gas and total absorption that nothing exists in that narrow zone.

Saturation can be measured in a laboratory in a ten centimeter tube. It will do exactly the same thing outdoors within a fraction of a percent.

The empirical measurements claim to show the greenhouse effect to exist by using satellites from 1970 and 1996 to show decreasing amounts of fingerprint radiation exiting the earth with increased amounts of greenhouse gases over time. Blocking radiation is the supposed greenhouse effect.

The experiment does not determine whether saturation exists. It's purpose is to show that the greenhouse effect exists as indicated by a reduction in fingerprint radiation with increased greenhouse gas. The detected radiation is primarily high in the stratosphere. There will always be some radiation somewhere, which says nothing about absence of radiation somewhere else. It doesn't answer the question of where does the radiation come from and how much gas causes that type of radiation to get totally absorbed.

The huge number of problems with such research is characteristic of the whole subject. Climatology is so vast and incongruous that it does not quite qualify as real science by normal standards of science. In that ocean of complexity, rationalizers can find anything they want to find. This effect is often referred to as cherry picking. If they didn't find what they were looking for today, wait until tomorrow, and it will show up.

Even worse, the promoters of global warming alarmism in science have shown that there is no data which they do not falsify for their purposes. They don't have the standards or reliability of garbage thieves. An indication of their corrupt standards is in their overwhelming claims in contradiction to basic knowledge and absence of accounting for the missing science.

Examples are called for. A stunning example of ignorance is 33°C which greenhouse gases supposedly added to the atmosphere. Alarmists attributed all atmospheric warming to greenhouse gases, forgetting to add some for conduction, convection and evaporation, which are the major sources of heat in the atmosphere. No real scientists could have overlooked them. This error is scattered across the internet, and no attempt at correction is being made. Both the original error and absence of a correction is condemning.

For false data, ice core measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations from the past are corrupt to a point of criminality. Carbon dioxide is not stable in ice. Original researchers could not resolve the problems. The one's who claimed to solve the problems did not produce credible solutions; they only added lies to the subject.

Thermometer measurements on land at weather stations were falsified in every way possible to show or exaggerate an effect.

A preposterous fudge factor was contrived to show how much heat carbon dioxide produces with no relationship to any evidence or logic.

With such a history of corruption, supposed empirical data cannot be considered to be reliable. Even reliable measurements could have any number of explanations, which does not justify contradicting the unquestionable facts related to saturation of greenhouse gases.

The attempt of the mentioned research disproving saturation was to accomplish something which the methodology was not suitable for. Satellites in 1970 bordered on by vacuum tube technology. The results cannot be calibrated to technology 26 years later with infinite complexity and variability in the viewing field. If the satellites were at different heights, latitudes or longitudes, they would have found different radiation. They could not scan enough area or time to determine relevant averages. The variations would have been so huge and numerous that rationalizers could pick any result they wanted. Innumerable influences over the results were totally impossible to evaluate or account for, such as changing weather, vegetation, pollution or ocean temperatures. A satellite would pass over unknown land and sea, and then some other land and sea 26 years later for comparison. Who are they kidding.

The concept itself is vague to a point of being meaningless. What does fingerprint radiation at the top of the atmosphere tell about anything? Who knows. Most of it is determined by the stratosphere, not the troposphere. But the satellites could not separate the sources or various influences at various wavelengths.

The claim is basically a fraud, because it says satellite measurements show saturation does not occur, since the radiation in question is picked up by satellites. But satellites cannot determine where the radiation comes from. In this case, it comes from the top of the stratosphere, while the questions about saturation apply to the near surface atmosphere.

The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. The measurements did not look at such radiation. Whatever was happening to the fingerprint radiation of greenhouse gases was not influencing global temperatures.

Whatever is happening in the stratosphere is extremely miniscule due to extremely cold temperatures. Only miniscule amounts of radiation are given off at those temperatures, and almost no effect upon the lower troposphere occurs. Yet the purpose of the research was to show that the greenhouse effect does exist, as indicated by radiation of that type.

Up against such witchcraft is the unquestionable nature of saturation. It's extremely easy to measure. All radiation available to CO2 at its primary absorption peak gets absorbed in 10 meters under near-surface conditions. You can't get it wrong, even if the distance is disputed. The distance should not be significantly disputable, as accuracy should be high with the measurements. To claim some witchcraft wipes out such simple and easy to measure effects is not an honest approach to science. Real scientists would raise a lot more questions and do a lot more studying of a lot more related questions. The reductionism is condemning. Throughout climatology, reductionism ignores most of the influences acting upon the effects being studied.

It's like a kid with a pea shooter claiming to kill an elephant. Or it's like proving that the automobile doesn't exist by setting up something and looking through it in a particular way. There has to be a credible logic to science. The rationalizers are showing how shoddy their science is rather than proving absurdities to be fact, as they do over and over.

Here's an IPCC quote: "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." http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/044.htm

So the fakes might be saying that saturation exists someplace, but the heat is occurring someplace else. It's not quite what they are saying, but if so, the need to find that magical area is the whole problem. It doesn't exist. They are trying to deny the whole problem; otherwise there would be no reason to say it.

The basic fraud of it is that the magical area where absorption occurs without saturation is virtually nonexistent. In fact, it cannot be defined. If non-saturation means some radiation escaping at the top of the troposphere, the concentration of CO2 would need to be reduced by more than one thousand. That means the temperature is reduced by a thousand for the heat which produces it. It's a non-effect.

Alarmists need a thin zone which does not exist and cannot be contrived.

Atmosphere	Imagination