There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Incompetent corrupters in physics started at the desired end point for greenhouse gases and used fake math to get there. They called the fake math "radiative transfer equations" (RTEs). As always, there was no way to remove all of the contradictions in contriving fakery. So there are scientific contradictions in the logic. The procedure was to divide the atmosphere into many slices and calculate the radiation leaving each slice and entering the slice above it. When they got to the top of the atmosphere, the claim was 3.7 watts per square meter less energy leaving than entering from the sun, which was attributed to carbon dioxide—five hundred years of scientific knowledge flushed down the drain of fake mathematics. It's the hoaxers equivalent of buying a pound of gold, cutting it into thousands of pieces and selling it back as two pounds of gold. In the thousands of slices, you can't prove where the extra gold came from. Nothing in physics is going to produce the precision needed to eliminate the errors in cutting atmospheric effects into thousands of pieces. The world's largest computers were used which prevented anyone from reproducing the results. There isn't a correct logic to the procedure. It means, for each watt of energy absorbed, there is 0.9973 watts of energy emitted. No physics says such a thing by any imagination. What hung onto that energy, where, how and why? There is no physics that says that. One of the frauds of so-called radiative transfer equations is that radiation which leaves one slice is not absorbed into the slice above it. Much of the radiation would go through several slices, depending upon the thickness of each slice, which is not stated in the fake "peer review" for such large studies. Also, the radiation is not emitted at the same wavelength as absorbed. It's absorbed as three narrow bands of "fingerprint" radiation and emitted as broad-band, black body radiation. So there is no such thing as radiation moving from slice to slice, and the absorption cannot be broken into discrete slices—a fallacy that negates the whole concept of radiative transfer equations. That means, there is nothing to analyze above ten meters from the surface of the earth. Above ten meters, radiation is absorbed and re-emitted with no change in temperature, much like a jar of pickles sitting on a kitchen table, which doesn't heat the kitchen. Yet climatologists have been looking for the heat caused by CO2 to be maximum at either 5 km up or 9 km up for screwy reasons related to interference from absorption by water vapor. The fake analysis of RTEs says there is 3.7 watts per square meter less radiant energy leaving the earth than entering from the sun upon doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The difference supposedly produces a 1°C temperature increase. That result would be a fixed disequilibrium. Fixed disequilibrium is an impossibility. 0.27% There is no such thing as a fixed disequilibrium in the forces or energy states of the atmosphere. The forces and energy states always move toward equilibrium. If not, there would not have been an equilibrium for carbon dioxide to disrupt. To assume nothing has ever influenced the equilibrium of the atmosphere in such a manner as increased carbon dioxide is beyond stupidity. What the corrupters would have needed for their argument would have been an upward shift in the equilibrium temperature. But there were too many complexities in equilibrium to be evaluated; so they had to produce a disequilibrium as a method of simplifying. Watts of difference between energy entering and leaving the atmosphere would produce continuous change, not a fixed number. It's like watts of energy going through an electric meter. Continuous energy flow produces an accumulating quantity. In two hours, it's twice as much energy as one hour. So people pay for watt-hours, not watts. Yet the watts supposedly trapped in the atmosphere and creating a disequilibrium are said to produce a constant number (1°C), not an increasing number. The fakes could not resolve that contradiction, because they wanted a temperature for a product and a method of getting it which would look like a scientific calculation. But they couldn't produce a calculation which would meet their requirements. So they contradicted the scientific logic. They reversed the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to convert watts per square meter into 1°C. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is expressed in watts per square meter, so they were stuck with watts. Also, there are no square meters in the atmosphere, but climatologists needed square meters to convert 3.7 W/m² into 1°C by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is not valid, because it applies to radiation emitted from an opaque surface, not from a three dimensional and transparent atmosphere. It means climatologists started at the desired endpoint of 1°C and contrived a method of getting there. Even if the assumption was that a surface existed for the atmosphere where space begins, getting that location wrong would change the watts per square meter. No one can agree where that interface is; so there is no definable surface area for the top of the atmosphere. And even if everyone agreed, the mathematics depends upon there being a definable surface for the top of the atmosphere, while there is none. As the atmosphere thins, the radius and hence surface area changes drastically with no definable boundary. Any chosen radius is arbitrary, while the math is claimed to be definitive. The sun's energy is stated as 1367 watts per square meter. So the 3.7 W/m² less is a loss of 0.27% of the energy. Nothing about the subject can be produced at that much accuracy. Very little about the atmosphere can even be measured. Modeling effects result in variations of hundreds of percent differences by different persons. It means the miniscule effect has no basis in measurement and was contrived for the purpose. The radiative transfer equations produce the same The fakery also makes saturation disappear, because the primary argument against a greenhouse effect for more than a century was saturation. Nothing can make saturation disappear, which shows the fraud of the RTEs. Making saturation disappear is like saying you can keep putting more and more water in a bucket without it overflowing. No math can get that result, but supposedly RTEs did.
The result of the radiative transfer equations is used as a simple formula for showing heating of the atmosphere upon each increase in carbon dioxide. The math formula is simplistic and unreal, which means it is fakerya fudge factor. The official climatology position is not an explanation; it's fake mathematics. The process is not a measurement; it is a series of calculations. The end result is summarized as a fudge factor for calculating the amount of heat produced by carbon dioxide in the air. The fudge factor says, the amount of heat added to the atmosphere (watts per square meter) equals 5.35 times the natural log of the amount of CO2 after an increase divided by the amount before. (myhre.pdf) Heat increase (W/m²) = 5.35 ln C/C0This equation states that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (natural log of 2 times 5.35) will result in a heat increase of 3.708 watts per square meter. It's total nonsense, as there are no square meters in the atmosphere. But the result points to a change in energy going into and out of the atmosphere when looking at the cross-sectional area of the earth from a distance, where the sun's energy is 1367 W/m². It's not appropriate to use math functions (such as the fudge factor) to represent the complexities of science, because the simplicity of a math equation leaves out too many effects. Also, the dynamic nature of climate changes constantly, on a small scale and long term scale, which cannot be represented by a math equation. (Philosophy of Science) But physicists don't know what science is; so they reduce everything they do to math equations. They assume their math is a higher standard. Corrupters tend to assume corruption is a superior standard. Mathematical calculations cannot account for the smallest fraction of the effects in the atmosphere or climate. So the omissions are filled in with fake modeling. Modeling cannot account for the missing information either. Yet the result of radiative transfer equations is supposedly 1% error, while modeling produces hundreds of percent variations in different models.
Because of saturation there cannot be temperature increases due to greenhouse gases. Radiative transfer equations were used to make saturation disappear. Nothing can make saturation disappear. Radiative transfer equations are a pretense of adding math to the randomness and complexity of energy moving through the atmosphere and then getting a disequilibrium number for a result. It's like mathematics for stirring ink into water. The randomness and complexity does not reduce to a mathematical analysis. Also, disequilibrium in the atmosphere is a heating and cooling process, not a stable temperature increase, as claimed for global warming. The math of radiative transfer equations would have to read through the constant changes in temperature of the atmosphere and extract a minute effect as if it existed in an identifiable manner. The constant changes in atmospheric temperatures are totally beyond mathematics. In other words, the claimed result is fakery.
Incompetents assume that warming is produced by radiation flowing back from carbon dioxide to the earth. Looking at radiation flow is nonscientific. Radiation constantly flows in all directions from all matter being emitted and absorbed in proportion to temperature. CO2 is not different from the nitrogen and oxygen in the air for radiation flows. In other words, the temperature has to show up in the carbon dioxide molecules independent of radiation flows. In other words, radiative transfer equations are total fakery with no concern for scientific credibility. Yet radiative transfer equations are said to be so precise and valuable that they are used to determine the temperature of the atmosphere on Venus. It's shameless worship of frauds, not science.
|
|