Carbon dioxide is said to first produce a primary effect of 1°C temperature increase upon doubling CO2; and then feedback produces secondary effects, which are modeled.
The primary effect is the science; the secondary effects are the witchcraft. The science is skipped over, while the witchcraft is studied and argued.
The 1°C primary effect is said to be, "easy to calculate and is undisputed." It comes from the fudge factor. It says:
Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. (3.7 W/m²)
Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase.
|
It's totally impossible to determine the relationship between heat and temperature in the atmosphere. It depends upon infinite variabales including rates of dissipation due to radiation and convection, which vary with the weather; highly variable humidity; unknown competing influences including conduction, evaporation and reflection; mysterious absorption of heat by ice melting; etc.
Furthermore, watts are not a quantity of heat; they are rates of heat addition. They have to show a constantly increasing temperature, which is not indicated by the conversion factor.
Therefore, the only indication of temperature is looking at the past and guessing. It's not a primary effect, because it includes everything that influenced the past.
In fact, over time the conversion factor has been reduced from 0.75 to 0.27. The reason for the changing number is because 25 years ago alarmist climatologists wanted the primary effect to be 2.8°C, but that amount was ridiculously high; so they reduced it several times, until it got to its present value of 1°C. It's not a measurement or law of nature; it's a contrivance.
The reason why this happened is because originally there was no concept of secondary effects. The whole concept of secondary effects is ridiculous. But history did not show the large amount of heating that contrivers needed to alarm the public. So they created a primary effect in line with history and then added secondary effects as a means of getting the temperature up. One of the absurdities is that historical effects would have included secondary effects, if they existed, so adding secondary effects to the fake primary effect was compounding (fake) secondary effects. As always, the contrivers didn't care how ridiculous their logic was; they just needed a pretext regardless of credibility.
 |
Greenhouse gases produce no primary effect at this time, which also means there are no secondary effects due to feedback.
Greenhouse gases saturated long ago. Alarmists who flood the internet with irrationality ridicule the concept of saturation, but ridicule is a substitute for knowledge. They cannot produce an explanation. All scientists recognize saturation and try to find explanations, but none of them are credible.
Saturation means all available radiation gets absorbed by greenhouse gases, so more of such gases cannot absrob more. The fudge factor says that radiation is just starting to get used up. It would say the same thing no matter how much radiation has been used up. A more complex equation would be needed to say there is very little radiation available at this time.
It doesn't matter though, because everything about the subject is contrived anyway. In other words, the fudge factor serves no purpose but fakery for appearance sake. Why wasn't it more credible looking? Probably because complexities would invite criticism. Why aren't the critics exposing the absurdities instead of claiming it to be unquestionable? They have to be totally incompetent and promoting motives.
Radiation getting used up doesn't mean it is gone; it means it gets completely absorbed in a short distance, so more CO2 cannot absorb more. Available radiation gets totally absorbed by CO2 in traveling 10 meters from its starting point in the atmosphere near the surface of the earth.
Even if the distance of 10 meters is wrong, some other number will do the same thing. It means the radiation gets used up. All scientists know this and agree.
Using up the radiation is called saturation. Trouble immediately begins due to the terminology. There is no sharp line to tell when or where saturation occurs. It's a sloppy term. Instead, the concept should be that the distance radiation will travel depends upon how many carbon dioxide molecules are absorbing it. There is always some distance to be considered, and there is no line saying when it should be called saturation. All CO2 can do is change distances, it cannot add heat.
Climatologists say radiation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks does not all get used up. They say 5% is functional, and the greenhouse effect of CO2 occurs with this 5%. The 5% number is rationalized fraud with no evidence or objective basis.
Explanation break: Climatologists are trying to imply that most radiation will sweep right past CO2 on the shoulders of the curves, but increasing the amount of CO2 will pick up some of that radiation. Their analysis has no more depth than that. They do not do the numbers or properly represent saturation. Below, the numbers are shown, and the result exposes the implication as scientific fraud.
This effect is the entire basis for global warming. It's supposed to be the mechanism for the greenhouse effect. No other mechanism has ever been described.
|
Carbon dioxide absorbs three narrow bands of "fingerprint" radiation. These bands cover 8% of the total bandwidth for infrared radiation in the atmosphere.
The primary band for CO2 looks like this:
The shape of the line follows the number of molecules which are absorbing radiation in a small tube in a laboratory. There are fewer CO2 molecules on the shoulders, because they have to have an unusual energy state due to stretching.
At the center of the main peak for CO2 (15 micro meters), all radiation is absorbed within 10 meters in the atmosphere. In other words, at 11 meters, no more radiation at that frequency can be found. But change the frequency a little, and less absorption occurs in the same distance, or more distance is required to absorb the same amount.
Side Point: Sometimes, the claim is made that the absorption peak will widen as CO2 is increased. It absolutely will not. The width is dependent upon the energy state of the molecules, and increasing the concentration does nothing to change the energy state. All real measurements show this. How can so much crap enter real science? It shows that this subject is not real science.
|
At about 14.1 µm, absorption is one twentieth (5%), and radiation goes 200 meters to be completely absorbed. More distance is required, because fewer CO2 molecules have the stretched shape which absorbs at that wavelength.
Upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the distance is half (100 m). Is reducing the distance from 200 m to 100 m increasing the near-surface temperature? Not at all. This is a miniscule amount of heat spread over 100 meters of height.
The total amount of temperature increase for CO2 is said to be 1°C upon doubling as the primary effect. So this 1°C must aproximately be divided by 20 due to 5% of the CO2 molecules at 14.1 µm, and aproximately divided again by 10 due to the molecules being spread over 100 meters of height instead of 10 meters. Spreading the molecules over more distance reduces their density and results in less temperature increase.
So 1°C ÷ 20 = 0.05, and this divided by 10 = 0.005°C.
These aproximations cannot be known exactly, but they would not be off by more than about 10%, which creates a range of 0.0045-0.0055°C.
The shoulder effects are miniscule, because very few CO2 molecules are involved, and they (the absorbing ones) are spread over more distance in the atmosphere.
A very conspicuous fraud is the claim that 5% of the CO2 molecules are available for global warming. These molecules absorb all radiation available to them in 100 meters upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Convectional currents rapidly mix all air that close to the surface. It means the heat added by those molecules is the same after doubling as before. Moving the heat from 200 meters to 100 meters is not changing anything.
This is the greenhouse effect. It doesn't exist.
|
Where in this is any indication that there will be 1°C temperature increase as the primary effect upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air? It's not in there. The number was derived from the fudge factor by extending the assumed past into the future. What then does the number have to do with absorption of radiation on the shoulders of the absorption peaks? Absolutely nothing. Shoulder absorption was only mentioned in climatology in an attempt to explain a mechanism for greenhouse gases creating global warming. A mechanism does not exist. Greenhouse gases cannot increase atmospheric temperature after the initial effects (called saturation), which occurred long ago.
|
Fudge Factor:
Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. (3.7 W/m²)
Temperature increase = 0.75 times heat increase.
|
The "easy to calculate and undisputed" 1°C is nothing but an extension of the assumed past into the future through the fudge factor. The past included everything which could influence the temperature, including primary effect, secondary effects, ice ages, ocean effects, solar effects, etc.
A three component fudge factor cannot account for all of that. It cannot be referred to as the primary effect, when it included everything that will influence the temperature.
Using past temperature assumptions as a representation of the primary effect of CO2 is a fraud at face value.
Rahmstorf (in Zedillo's book, 2008) cited the IPCC saying: "Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed." The fudge factor yields 3.7 W/m², which means it is the basis for the easy and undisputable calculation. Later the IPCC changed the formula of multimplying watts per square meter by 0.75 to 0.27. Who could care why. Changing these numbers on a whim is nothng but rationalized fraud.
Watts per square meter are rates of addition. Temperature is a fixed constant. To get from rate to a constant requires unaccounted for complexity. It's like adding water to a leaky bucket. Only if the rate going in is the same as the rate going out will there be a constant amount in the bucket. What balances the rate in with the rate out for the 3.7 watts per square meter? There is no analysis. The persons who use the fudge factor don't know the difference between rate and constant amount.
5% of Saturation is Total Contrivance
When climatologists said 5% of the absorption spectrum for CO2 does not saturate and is therefore the source of global warming, the claim was nothing but word salad. There is nothing in the science or math to indicate a relevance for 5%.
Here's why the 5% is total fraud: Saturation means all available radiation is absorbed by CO2 in about 10 meters. (It could be 100 meters, and the contradictions would be the same.) Upon doubling the CO2, the distance is 5 m. No change in temperature supposedly occurs when the distance for 95% of the molecules is reduced from 10 m to 5 meters. But 5% of the molecules have stretched bonds and absorb all radiation in 200 meters, until doubling, where the distance becomes 100 meters. These molecules supposedly create global warming, while other 95% do not.
Global warming supposedly creates 3.7 watts per square meter upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, 5% of the CO2 supposedly adds 3.7 W/m² by reducing the distance of absorption from 200 m to 100 m; but the other 95% adds no heat upon doubling, while its absorption distance is reduced from 10 m to 5 m.
Why do a few molecules reducing a long distance create global warming, while a lot of molecules reducing a short distance do nothing? Word salad as science is the only reason.
The starting numbers could be anything, and the truth would be the same. If the 10 m should be 100 m, the short distance of 95% would reduce 100 m to 50 m and do nothing, while the other 5% reduce 2,000 m to 1,000 meters and supposedly create global warming.
What gullible persons are supposed to assume is that 5% of the molecules radiate straight into space, while 95% of the radiation gets trapped; and then doubling the CO2 traps the other 5%. But all doubling the CO2 can do is reduce distances to half. What would half the distance be for the 5% going into space? One kilometer? Two kilometers? The farther the distance, the more ridiculous the temperature increase gets, while the other 95% starts at one twentieth the distance and does nothing when reduced to half the distance.
If this isn't what happens, what does? There has been no other explanation for the mechanism for global warming by CO2 other than 5% of the absorption spectrum supposedly does not saturate. The absence of clarification is as much of a fraud as the fake math.
Another problem with the fudge factor is that it does not have proper limits and does not relate properly to admitted saturation. Based upon the fudge factor, the first molecule of CO2 doubling to the second molecule increased global heat by 3.7 W/m².
According to statements elsewhere, saturation already occurred for 95% of the CO2 influence, yet doubling CO2 forever increases heat by 3.7 W/m². The influence of CO2 can never totally saturate with the fudge factor being used to calculate heat or temperature.
In other words, a three component equation cannot handle even the most rudimentary complexities of global warming. The fudge factor was contrived to produce the simplest possible number for immediate effects without including complexities which could not be evaluated. This mentality is found throughout climatology. The complexities of climate cannot be evaluated with human limitations, yet calculations and studies are simplistic and endless in pretending to show a scientific analysis.
|
Chasing a Rabbit
Since the points on this page are so irrefutable, most climatologists are apparently shifting their claims to the upper atmosphere as the location for the mechanism which creates global warming. Thinner atmosphere allows some radiation to escape into space which would otherwise be trapped by CO2. They go from bad to worse in the upper atmosphere.
Shifting the location from near the surface of the earth to the upper atmosphere shows that a known mechanism does not exist. The shift in location occurred over the past few years, which means the science was not settled in the past.
No one has ever detected a temperature increase in the upper atmosphere. If it existed, it could not radiate significant heat back to the near-surface, where global warming is said to be occurring.
It would have to radiate in all directions equally, which means only half downward. This doubles the temperature requirement in the upper atmosphere, if the same mass of air were heated at 9 km height as heated near the earth.
The temperature is -43°C at 9 km height. Not much radiation is given off at that temperature, so the result must be divided by 0.40, based on the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.
Only 30% of infrared, black body radiation goes around greenhouse gases, which would be as true for radiation going downward as upward. Then about 30% will be reflected due to sharp angles, which requires dividing by 0.70.
The total of these influences would be 2 ÷ 0.40 ÷ 0.30 ÷ 0.70 = 24°C.
In other words, the air would need to increase in temperature by 24°C at 9 km of height to heat an equal amount of air to 1°C near the surface of the earth, and no temperature increase in the upper atmosphere has ever been detected.
Then there are endless theoretical problems in claiming the second 280 ppm CO2 will do the same thing in the upper atmosphere as the first 280 ppm did in the lower atmosphere. The first increase included pre-saturation effects, which supposedly warmed the near-surface of the planet by 3.6°C, and this increase is placed on the same curve as the post saturation effects in the upper atmosphere, when using the unquestionable fudge factor.
How about this oddity: The original claim was that CO2 would produce 2.8°C increase primary effect. It was lowered to 1.2°C, because the past was of that nature. Then it was reduced to 1°C, because water vapor overlaps CO2 on one side of an absorption peak, while there are 3 peaks for CO2. Reducing by one sixth produced 1°C. But water vapor overlaps CO2 only near the surface, not high in the atmosphere. So climatologists are still using numbers rationalized for near surface effects, while shifting the claims to the upper atmosphere.
If they didn't know where it was occurring until recently, they didn't know what the mechanism was. If they didn't know the mechanism, they didn't know it was occurring. Why then were they telling us this as undisputable science, when they hadn't determined this latest fact/contrivance until recently? It will change again, when the truth catches up to them again.
Climatologists never account for equilibrium. Even when they mention it, they never properly account for it. Temperatures equilibrate easier at the top of the atmosphere than at the bottom. Equilibrium means heat flows from warmer to colder until the same amount of heat leaves the planet as enters from the sun. If some heat flow gets blocked, more will leave in some other way. CO2 can only block a narrow band of frequencies, while heat escapes at a wide band of frequencies. Any effect by CO2 will be offset at other frequencies and other locations, as heat flows from warmer to colder temperatures.
Most radiation leaves the planet from the atmosphere, not the surface, because radiation escapes from a transparent gas much easier than from an opaque solid. The NASA energy chart shows ten times as much radiation escaping into space from the atmosphere as from the surface. This means heat accumulation in any part of the atmosphere is offset by more radiation leaving that area.
Only 8% of the radiation leaving from high in the atmosphere is influenced by carbon dioxide, as the bandwidth for CO2 is 8% of the black body bandwidth. Only 10% of the radiation going into space leaves from the surface of the earth. The rest of the radiation equilibrates awful easily.
Equilibrium nullifies any concept of global warming due to greenhouse gases, because the same amount of heat will escape into space no matter how it is distributed through the atmosphere. The concept of a greenhouse effect starts with the assumption that there will be less radiation leaving the earth if some gets trapped. Heat cannot get trapped in the atmosphere, because it leaves too easily over a wide bandwidth. A gate half open won't keep in half the sheep.
Some climatologists are now saying that greenhouse gases shift the equilibrium temperature upward by causing radiation to leave at a higher altitude. It's nothing but more word salad, attempting to reduce infinite complexity to a single event, as usual.
