Equilibrium.

Climatologists needed a number to represent global warming, while there is no number where there is equilibrium.

Equilibrium means the same amount of radiation goes into space as enters from the sun. All large, dynamic systems keep doing something until an endpoint is reached, which is equilibrium. Things self-adjust until they all balance, which is equilibrium.

The way the earth's energy equilibrium works is that radiation carries energy into space at the same rate the sun adds energy to the earth. Most of the radiation leaves from the atmosphere, not the surface of the earth. The reason is because radiation can leave from every point in a transparent gas, but only from the surface molecules for the opaque solids on the surface.

As radiation carries energy away, the atmosphere cools down. The colder it gets, the slower it radiates. It cools until it liberates as much energy as the sun adds. There is a slight delay, as energy builds up during the day and cools down at night.

Equilibrium determines the temperature of the atmosphere independent of how the heat gets there. Supposedly, humans ruined the radiation equilibrium causing 3.7 W/m² less energy to leave the earth than enters from the sun upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. escape radiation It's impossible for the system to not reach equilibrium.

Climatologists needed a number to represent global warming, so they said 3.7 W/m² of disequilibrium is the number. But there is no such thing as disequilibrium in the atmosphere due to heat moving in and out rapidly..

The claimed 3.7 W/m² was a mathematical stunt needed to pretend that climatologists can calculate global warming. Otherwise, all numbers disappear in the process of equilibrium occurring. What are scientists if they can't find the numbers?

Notice that less energy leaving the earth than entering should result in a continuous buildup of heat. Watts are units of rate, which means continuous increase. Yet the result is said to be a fixed 1°C temperature increase upon doubling the amount of CO2 in the air. There is no explanation for this discrepancy. It is being overlooked for the purpose of pretending to have a mathematical analysis where there is none.

The procedure for producing the 1°C is by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. Reversing it is not valid, because it destroys correct cause-and-effect relationships. This problem shows why the Stefan-Boltzmann constant cannot be reversed.

Here is a graph of the amount of CO2 in the air since terestrial biology began. When is this not equilibrium? Only when humans got involved? If so, there would be no such thing as equilibrium.

The increase in CO2 in the air during the dinosaur years was due to volcanoes increasing, as continental plates got thick and started to crumble when colliding. The volcanoes are dying down, as the tectonic plates are getting so thick that magma cannot get to the surface.

Why does all of this variation in CO2 result in equilibrium energy between inflow and outflow from the planet, until humans come along and add a tiny amount? Contrivance is the only reason. Climatologists can't handle a lot of complexities with their reductionistic math, so they don't say a disequilibrium always occurred; they say it all started at zero disequilibrium when humans altered the result.

Contrivers routinely say that a lot of global warming was occurring during dinosaur years due to the high level of CO2 in the air. But supposedly, disequilibrium was a new thing that humans created. How did CO2 create heat without a number for disequilibrium in earlier times? Is there more than one mechanism? The fudge factor for calculating a number shows only one mechanism. Adding up the contrivances would say that the fudge factor produces zero watts per square meter for all increases of CO2 in the air except when humans are putting it there.

Humans cannot alter the net-equivalent temperature of the atmosphere. (Equilibrium does not mean stable; it means self-adjusting.)

(See how a mathematical stunt replaces equilibrium here.)

Equilibrium should mean the net equivalent temperature of the atmosphere, since heat will radiate into space from all points of the atmosphere.

But climatologists are rationalistically claiming that there is an equilibrium temperature about 9 kilometers up in the atmosphere from which all heat leaving the planet escapes. They got to that point by applying the Stephan-Boltzmann constant to a fictitious escape temperature, as if no radiation escapes from any other point in the atmosphere.

What keeps radiation from escaping at 8 km or 7 km? Nothing does. Such is the nature of the shameless fraud of climatology.

radiation In response to criticism on equilibrium, climatologists sometimes pretend to account for equilibrium by saying CO2 shifts the equilibrium temperature at some imaginary surface near the stratosphere. It's nothing but more word salad. The number 3.7 W/m² is disequilibrium. CO2 cannot influence equilibrium, so the fakes claim it occurs at the top of the atmosphere, where the distance upward increases with increased CO2. It doesn't happen. The cooling occurs throughout the troposphere. Rapid cool-down at night shows that heat leaves from the near-surface atmosphere.

There is no single, identifiable equilibrium temperature to be shifted. Equilibrium involves every molecule and temperature in the atmosphere and on the surface.

30% of the black body radiation goes around greenhouse gases directly into space. 8% of the black body radiation is absorbed by carbon dioxide.

(Black body radiation is all infrared radiation given off by matter. It increases with temperature.)

The temperature of the atmosphere is not determined by the amount of heat entering it nor by the amount of heat leaving it but by an equilibrium between the two which nature establishes and humans cannot comprehend. Heat enters and leaves the planet rapidly creating short-term variations in equilibrium temperature (like night and day), while long term variations are due to change in net energy entering from the sun or oceans.

Even the first 1-10% of the greenhouse gasses did not create significant temperature increase of the planet, because the atmosphere equilibrates at the temperature it wants to settle at independent of how it gets there. It gets there through long wavelength infrared radiation which goes around the greenhouse gasses, not through them. River, not Window

Why does the atmosphere want to settle at a particular temperature? Because the temperature determines the amount of radiation emitted (wavelength does not). As the atmosphere gets colder, it emits less radiation. The amount emitted must equal the amount entering from the sun.

Climatologists replace equilibrium with a fake zone of emissions to explain how the right amount of energy leaves the planet. They claim there is a particular temperature, and thus height, in the atmosphere which emits the same amount of energy as absorbed from the sun based on the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. But the SBC only applies to a surface, not a gas. So the frauds pick a spot about 5-9 km up where the emissions supposedly occur. Nothing could be more fraudulent. The constant gradient of temperature in the atmosphere shows that radiation is emitted from all points in the atmosphere, not from a imaginary level. If it were all emitted from the same place, how would the energy get there?

Equilibrium doesn't mean constant and unchanging temperature; it means long term net effect. And different mediums (oceans and atmosphere) have different influences on the equilibrium. So how can temperatures change drastically for tens of thousands of years through ice ages? Ice ages are due to reflected sunlight off clouds and ice. Little ice ages appear to be caused by variations in solar intensity. Recent changes appear to be caused by oceans heating creating more precipitation but not much real temperature increase.

The concept of greenhouse gasses creating global warming is absurd, because it is based on the premise of luck. Without a controlling factor (equilibrium), the global temperature would slide around—like going up 30 degrees and then down 50 degrees, resting at various extremes, until something created the next reversal.

And yet the ignorant fools who hype global warming call it a “delicate balance.” There is nothing delicately balanced about such a spurious result.

Rates influence in mysterious ways. Without equlibrium controlling the result, resting points move toward extremes.

An example would be the amount of something in a warehouse. If you know how much is going in and how much is going out, all you know is whether the stored amount is increasing or decreasing. The actual stored amount could be anything.

Say someone is storing televisions. If 100 per day go into the warehouse, and 90 per day come out, the stored amount increases by 10 per day. But what is the total amount stored? There is no way of knowing by observing what goes in and what comes out. It depends upon the total history. There could be ten thousand televisions in the warehouse; there could be a hundred.

With the atmosphere, the total history is not known. Even if a good estimate could be made for heat entering and leaving in a single day, within a few days, the error would accumulate to a point where the total amount in the atmosphere would be totally unknown. And climatologists cannot make a good estimate of rates entering and leaving, contrary to the claims of fakes.

The primary factor determining the temperature of the atmosphere is the tendency of air to release energy as radiation at any temperature. If more heat entered the atmosphere, the air would release radiation faster. And if less heat entered, radiation would be reduced.

Physicists pretend that they know what temperature the atmosphere must be to radiate the same amount of energy into space as enters from sunlight. They have an equation for this called the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. But it only applies to solid surfaces, not gasses. Gasses don't have a surface. Physicists use the equation for the atmosphere anyway (SBC), which is ridiculous. It shows how arrogant and shameless corrupt scientists have become.

There is no surface to the atmosphere for radiation to depart from. Therefore, it is impossible for physicists to determine at what temperature a given amount of radiation would be emitted. There is a gradient of temperatures in the atmosphere.

And then to complicate things further, some radiation goes partway through the atmosphere and gets re-absorbed by the atmosphere. Some wavelengths of radiation go farther through the atmosphere, and some go less.

Physicists don't have the slightest ability to sort out those complexities. So they have no ability to determine what temperature the atmosphere should be based upon energy going in and energy going out.

Nature defines equilibration in terms of it's required temperature, which humans cannot influence.

Nature must produce a rate of heat outflow which equals the rate of heat inflow from the sun. The rate of heat outflow is precisely, definitively and invariably controlled by temperature. This means the temperature required for equilibrium is defined by the amount of energy entering from the sun. And this means it has absolutely nothing to do with anything humans do.

Physicist/climatologists have the first part of this right. They know that the rate of heat outflow will be determined by temperature. But then they go off the tracks applying the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to determine where that defined temperature is located (SBC).

The defined temperature is not at a specific location—it is distributed throughout the atmosphere, because radiation leaves the planet throughout the atmosphere. And therefore, the defined temperature is a cumulative result of the whole atmosphere, which maintains a temperature gradient.

I would be tempted to say the atmosphere creates an "average" temperature which produces the required result; but there are no averages in nature, and climatologists have perverted the concept of average so grossly that I must avoid using the term average. Instead, I would say that nature produces an "effective cumulative temperature" or "effective gradient of temperatures" which produce the right amount of heat loss.

This effective gradient of temperatures cannot be changed by God or man and still meet the requirements. But perhaps it can be shifted in some way. If the escape zone gets narrower, it would be hotter, because more heat would have to leave from a smaller area (three dimensional volume).

Greenhouse gasses do make the escape zone slightly narrower at the top of the atmosphere as they increase, and it would be of miniscule relevance if the heat were escaping by going through the greenhouse gasses instead of around them. But any real such situation would create bizarre effects which are not occurring. If no radiation went around the greenhouses gasses, all of the cooling would occur at the top of the atmosphere, and the lower atmosphere would be almost undefined, with massive heat accumulation which would shift like the weather, being influenced by convection mostly.

The near perfect gradient of temperatures with height in the atmosphere is the signature of radiation going around the greenhouse gasses instead of through them.

Physicists claim that the temperature gradient with height in the atmosphere is an adiabatic effect. It isn't. The adiabatic effect is cooling which results from expansion, which would require upward convection. There is very little large-scale, vertical convection in the atmosphere. There are physicists who could figure such things out, but frauds take over science and silence their critics.

Physicists pretend (vaguely assume and imply, and peripherally sometimes directly state) that increasing greenhouse gasses reduces the amount of radiation that goes around them by widening the absorption bands. Unspeakable fraud. The width of the absorption bands is determined by the energy state of the molecules. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses does absolutely nothing to change the energy state of the molecules and does not widen the absorption bands, as real graphs, such as produced by Heinz Hug, demonstrate. Therefore, increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses has no influence on the radiation which goes around them and does the actual cooling of the planet.

TOP