There is no such thing as greenhouse gases, because there is no such thing as trapping heat in the atmosphere. Absorbed radiation is re-emitted in femto seconds.
Radiation is an extremely weak form of energy, but alarmists/greens don't care, because they assume heat accumulates infinitely in the atmosphere. No it doesn't, it dissipates in femto seconds.
All heat is the same. Why isn't it all trapped? Conduction, convection and evaporation put most heat into the atmosphere. It dissipates into space at the same rate it enters from the sun, called equilibrium. Claiming CO2 absorption is different is unscientific.
Critics of global warming have not touched the underlying science, because they don't understand it. As a result, society is left with no significant criticism of the science of global warming.
One reason for the lack of criticism is that hired scientists cannot be significantly critical without being kicked out of science or being denied grants or the ability to publish. There is a long list of scientists who met that fate. This practice alone is a major fraud upon the public. How can science (or anything else) be right, when no one is allowed to criticize it? Truth benefits from criticism. The opposition to criticism points to an unjustifiable position. Example by Roger Pielke, Jr.
Criticism is stymied by an absence of validly published research. Research publications on climatology lack the necessary descriptions of methodology. Key information needed for evaluation is omitted in an attempt to obfuscate the subject. Without proper publications, the only way criticism can be produced is to draw upon 500 years of evolved knowledge and show that the conclusions are self-contradictory impossibilities.
Most scientists are not aware of the frauds at the origins of global warming science. Scientists are so specialized and wrapped up in their narrowly defined subjects that they cannot spend much time looking into the large amount of related material. It took me decades of detective work as an independent scientist to determine the nature of the frauds at the origins of global warming science.
A flat-earther is supposedly someone who cannot understand what an arrow going up and down means. Five hundred years of science has produced a lot more knowledge than that.
Here are six proofs of global warming science fraud:
1. Dilution Factor
Climatologists skipped over the dilution factor. There are 2,500 air molecules around each CO2 molecule (400 parts per million CO2). Therefore, each CO2 molecule would have to be 2,500°C to heat the air 1°C—an impossibility. Fakes in science missed it by 2,499°C. There cannot be greenhouse gases creating global warming for this reason.
If a brick building has 2,500 bricks, heating one brick won't heat the building.
In such dynamic systems rates of heat addition require proportionalities due to continuous change.
2. Trapping HeatThe term "heat trapping gas" is scientific fraud. Heat cannot be trapped, because it is too dynamic. It flows into and out of the atmosphere in femto seconds. Almost all heat leaves the earth from the atmosphere, not the ground.
All matter is constantly losing heat through radiation. Heat is vibration of molecules. Each vibration of a molecule in the air is a wave of radiation being emitted. There are typically 83 femto seconds per vibration (at 25 microns wavelength). About five vibrations removes absorbed radiation. Five vibrations occur in 415 femto seconds. That's half of a pico second. A half of a pico second for holding heat is not trapping heat.
The amount of heat entering from the sun during the day is the amount that leaves during the night. A miniscule amount is not going to get trapped while the rest radiates into space.
A jar of pickles absorbs radiation, but it doesn't heat the kitchen. If pickles don't trap heat in a jar, CO2 won't trap heat in the atmosphere.
The claim by some scientists that heat cannot enter the atmosphere without greenhouse gases is another fraud. Most heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation. It takes a few hours for the heat to be emitted into space, because radiation is extremely weak compared to conduction, convection and evaporation.
Re-emission of radiation does not result in a cold atmosphere, because this effect is miniscule and riding on top of normal temperatures created through conduction, convection and evaporation.
Absorbed radiation (fingerprint radiation) is weaker than emitted radiation (black body radiation), because 8% of black body radiation is fingerprint radiation for these conditions.
3. White Hot Metals
The amount of energy given off by the surface of the earth is claimed to be 79% radiation and 21% conduction and vaporization. White hot metals could not emit 79% radiation under atmospheric conditions. The real proportion would be 1-3% radiation. Reducing the radiation by a factor of 40 would reduce the calculated global warming by a factor of 40.
4. Heat Capacity
The air has too little heat capacity to warm ocean water or melt Arctic ice. Twelve-year-olds were supposed to learn what heat capacity is, but physicists didn't.
To heat oceans with air requires a ratio of 3483 by volume for same temperatures. The heat capacity for air is 1.2 kj/m³/°C, while for water it is 4180 kj/m³/°C. To heat the oceans 0.2°C to a depth of 350 meters would require air losing 0.2°C to a height of 1,219 kilometers (at constant surface pressure). That's 100 atmospheres. The oceans cannot be heated by the atmosphere.
Melting ice with air is even more absurd, as an additional "heat of fusion" is required, which is 334 kj/kg, which is an additional 278,000 m³ of air per °C per m³ of ice. In other words, air in contact with ice sucks the heat out of the air with no effect upon the ice. With a small amount of ice and a lot of air, the cool air gets replace with warm air, but on a global scale, the replacing does not occur. It means polar ice melting has nothing to do with global warming.
The Arctic is warming due to warm Pacific Ocean water flowing over the Bering Strait, not a miniscule air temperature increase. With the recent El Nino, the northern Pacific Ocean is warming causing warm water to flow over the Bering Strait to heat the Arctic and melt Arctic ice.
5. Temperature Measurements are Fake
Not only are humans not the cause of global warming, a temperature increase did not actually occur. The temperature measurements were faked. The original data shows no temperature increase over the past 35 years at least, while contrivers lowered earlier measurements and increased recent measurements to show a false increase. Critics have been studying these fabrications for the past six years and found endless examples. Satellite measurements have shown no significant temperature increase since they began making such measurements in the late seventies. Only satellite measurements are suitable for the purpose of climatology, because they average over a wide area and cover everything, while land-based measurements cover about 10% of the earth and have no standards for cross-comparisons or uniformity.
6. Starting at the End-Point
For a mechanism, climatologists used radiative transfer equations to supposedly show 3.7 watts per square meter less radiation leaving the planet than entering from the sun due to carbon dioxide. There can never be a difference between energy inflow and outflow beyond minor transitions because of equilibrium, as climatologists recognize. Yet they claim the 3.7 w/m² is a permanent representation of global warming upon doubling CO2. This number is supposed to result in 1°C near-surface temperature increase as the primary effect by CO2. However, watts per square meter are units of rate, while rates produce continuous change, not a fixed 1°C. The 1°C was supposedly produced by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, but reversing it is not valid. (Secondary effects supposedly triple the 1°C to 3°C.)
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says a surface at a particular temperature will give off so much radiation (3.7 w/m² when increasing 1°C). Reversing it would say 3.7 w/m² strikes a surface and increases its temperature by 1°C. But climatologists are not saying the 3.7 w/m² are striking a surface; they are saying it is the difference between inflow and outflow from the whole planet resulting in a "near-surface" temperature increase of 1°C.
Furthermore, climatologists did not reduce the result of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant by the emissivity factor of 0.64, as they failed to do almost everyplace else. Not the least reason is because the claimed emissivity had not been determined (faked) until recently. Emissivity should reduce the 3.7 w/m² to 2.4 w/m² in the forward direction. The origin of the 3.7 w/m² was supposedly radiative transfer equations, where the accuracy was said to be about 1% error.
It means climatologists started at the desired end point of 1°C and applied the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in the forward direction to the get the 3.7 w/m² attributed to radiative transfer equations. Radiative transfer equations cannot produce any such number, because radiation leaves from all points in the atmosphere with 15-30% going around greenhouse gases. That dynamic, combined with equilibrium, is beyond scientific quantitation.
All life is on the verge of becoming extinct due to a shortage of carbon dioxide in the air, which is needed for photosynthesis. The oceans nearly absorbed all carbon dioxide from the air 300 million years ago. In the nick of time, volcanoes replaced some of it, but they died down, and now the CO2 is almost gone again.