Greenhouse gases do not exist, because there is no such thing as trapping heat in the atmosphere. Large amounts of heat move into and out of the atmosphere constantly. Why would some of the heat be trapped while the rest cools? It would be like trapping water in a river.
Most heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation, as wind blows over the surface. Some scientists were saying there is no other way to get heat into the atmosphere than greenhouse gases. They recently stopped saying that, but activists and journalists didn't notice. Doesn't such an error say there are some real idiots in science? Yet propaganda from the journalists has convinced most persons that there can be no such thing as errors in science.
When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs radiation, it re-emits the radiation in 83 femto seconds at an average wavelength of 25 microns. The time can be calculated based on wavelength of the radiation. Each wave of emitted radiation is a vibration by the molecule emitting it. All matter emits radiation constantly in proportion to its temperature, as indicated by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, though that constant shows too much radiation at normal temperatures.
This miniscule nonresult must be divided by 2,500, because surrounding molecules dilute it that much. There are 2,500 air molecules surrounding each CO2 molecule when carbon dioxide is at 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Therefore, to heat the air
This is why "heat trapping gas" had to be contrived as a propaganda statement. If the heat isn't trapped, it can't spread to the other 2,500 molecules.
The terminology for the depicted events would be that a greenhouse gas "redirects" radiation from space to atmosphere. Crossing out redirecting and inserting in trapping is not a trivial word mix-up, since the subject consists of nothing but word salad with no mechanism being described. Climatologists say 15-30% of the radiation goes around greenhouse gases. That would be 15% error in disputed radiation, while the 3.7 w/m² number is said to only have 1% error. Furthermore, the redirected radiation would be subject to saturation, while saturation disappears in the 3.7 w/m² number. And redirecting without trapping would require each CO2 molecule to be 2,500°C to get an average increase of 1°C for the whole atmosphere.
We commonly hear nonscientific persons say they can look out the window and see global warming. No scientist finds relevance in what someone sees looking out the window. Nothing ever stays the same with climate and weather. What people are seeing is nothing compared to the droughts and extremes that occur somewhere every year and always have.
Melting in the Arctic is caused by warm ocean water flowing over the Bering Strait, not warm air which has no heat capacity. Northern Pacific Ocean water is heating for a mysterious reason which appears to be volcanic activity on the ocean floor. This effect is in addition to the planet warming constantly between ice ages, which occurs over a mere 12,000 years. During this short time, ocean levels rise 400 feet, while glaciers melt.
Global warming is such a preposterous assumption that reasonable scientists rejected the subject until recently. Now, science is so corrupt that global warming errors prevail. The claimed 97% agreement is total contrivance. Scientists are not allowed to express opinions in peer reviewed publications, where the fake 97% number was derived through guessing and then published as peer reviewed science. The breakdown used to be 50-50, and would still be, but critics of global warming are now getting shoved out of science, so they conceal their views. Science by terrorism shows who is producing the fraud.
The recent history of global warming "science" began with a lot of fake modeling starting in the mid seventies. Then Radiative Transfer Equations became the method of quantitation for the primary effect of greenhouse gases.
The unreliability of modeling has been argued, but the early publications were worse than modeling; they were misrepresentations and guesses at the incongruous complexities of the atmosphere. Those standards were blatant fraud beyond modeling. Of course, provability was buried in obfuscation, but obfuscation is not science.
The foundational numbers were derived through Radiative Transfer Equations (RTEs). The final version was published in the late nineties. The implications are that such procedures go back quite a ways, while the evidence disappears into a fog.
The purpose in itself is a fraud for RTEs, because it's impossible to reduce the complexities of the atmosphere to math. Supposedly the amount of radiation being emitted and absorbed can be calculated for numerous layers of the atmosphere to determine how much radiation is emitted into space. Nothing resembling it is possible.
Wikipedia says that the amount of radiation going around greenhouse gases is 15-30%. That's at least a 15% error in the calculations, which were supposedly precise to about 1%. With radiation leaving from all points in the atmosphere, there is no way to quantitate the amount going around greenhouse gases.
Equilibrium controls the rate of radiation outflow, while the effect cannot be quantitated. Equilibrium means temperature build-up occurs until the rate of energy exiting equals the rate of entering. Yet the product of RTEs is a number supposedly representing dis-equilibrium. It says there is 3.7 watts per square meter less radiation leaving the planet than entering upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. There is no such thing as dis-equilibrium of temperature in the atmosphere.
The illogical claim of dis-equilibrium shows that the purpose was to contrive a number which could be used to present an image of quantitation as a representation of unquestionable science and the invincibility of the (official) scientists in solving problems. To produce the quantitation, a fake logic was strewn together in a rationalistic manner in contempt for obvious science.
Saturation precludes a temperature increase caused by CO2, but saturation was erased in the RTEs. There was no way to account for saturation in the calculations. Climatologists stopped mentioning saturation in 2001 with no ability to account for it.
But the RTEs are such an obscure muddle than any claim could be attributed to them. The world's largest computers were used, which means total darkness with no accountability for the procedure.
What can be said is that it is impossible to account for saturation in the RTEs. Saturation can be measured in terms of distance, but climatologists avoid doing so. A German scientist, Heinz Hug, did the measurement and said saturation occurs in 10 meters under near-surface conditions. Of course, he couldn't publish such criticism, but he put it on the internet.
Radiative Transfer Equations cannot account for infinite complexities including clouds and humidity, so climatologists ignore those questions in the calculations of RTEs and model the complexities later. There is no number to acquire when ignoring the complexities; yet a number is given as the invariable primary effect upon which complexities are modeled including secondary effects.
This line of logic muddles the complexities together pretending to extract a number for the primary effect, while there is no such number.
It means climatologists started at the desired end point of 1°C temperature increase upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air and contrived a fake method of calculating it. The result is stated as 3.7 w/m² less radiation leaving the earth than entering due to doubling the CO2 in the air as the primary effect, and then secondary effects supposedly triple it to 3°C mostly due to increased water vapor.
Translating 3.7 w/m² into 1°C is another fraud, as there is no definitive relationship, not the least reason being that equilibrium prevents the 3.7 w/m² from existing.
The 1°C was supposedly produced by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, but reversing it is not valid. It states the amount of radiation emitted from a surface at a particular temperature. There is no temperature that a particular amount of radiation will create, because the constant applies to a defined area on a surface, not a three dimensional atmosphere.
There are two simple facts which turn this whole contrivance into fraud. One, greenhouse gases do not exist, because there is no way to trap heat in the atmosphere. A science for studying something that does not exist is an inherent fraud. Secondly, temperature flows in the atmosphere are infinitely complex, with each molecule influencing other molecules in unknown ways. Such infinite flows of energy cannot be scientifically quantitated.
There is a pretense throughout physics that a mathematical analysis can be made by ignoring infinite complexities and evaluating each effect separately. The whole concept of doing that is invalid science. Complex interactions cannot be separated into unrelated effects for quantitation.
It means the social argument over how much heating results from human activity is built upon a foundation of nonexistent and corrupt science.