The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective
History of AGW Fraud. For most of the twentieth century, scientists were unconcerned about global warming, because carbon dioxide saturates (saturation explained below) and cannot do more heating. Whatever CO2 did in the past, adding more CO2 cannot change anything. But then global warming was dug up by environmentalists, and rationalizers took another look at the science and said, maybe saturation does not occur at the top of the atmosphere. As time went on, every element of the science was contrived to promote global warming alarmism.
History of AGW Fraud, by Marc Sheppard
Ice Ages. Ice ages occur every 100,000 years. The next one is scheduled to begin now. Oceans and temperatures rise before the ice ages begin.
Incongruous Atmosphere. 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.
Temperature Gradient. The gradient of temperatures in the atmosphere is the signature of radiation going around the greenhouse gasses, not through them.
Zone of Emission Fraud. Fake scientists claim there is a zone in the atmosphere about five kilometers up and -19°C which emits radiation outward at the required rate to balance radiation inward from the sun. There is no such zone; and there is no way to keep radiation from being emitted from other parts of the atmosphere at different temperatures. Zone of Emission Fraud
Physics Contrived. Equations for calculating heat in the atmosphere do not apply for saturation. But to pretend otherwise, a fudge factor was contrived for fake calculations. The so-called settled science is nothing but a fudge factor.
Contradictions. Humans did not create enough supposed temperature increase in the past to point to the amount of temperature increase alarmists want to show for the future. But alarmists made the leap anyway, which resulted in Contradictions in the Fudge Factor.
Temperature Measurements Falsified. After all the claims of unquestionable science, the end result is based on one point only—thermometer measurements—because there is no physics which can resolve the complexities. Climategate files show what had already been established by critics: The temperature increase is fake. Satellite measurements show very little temperature increase (due to warming oceans, not CO2), but the satellite data was adjusted to fit the fake thermometer data. Fake Temperature Measurements
Second Climategate: An investigation shows NCDC and GISS faking temperature measurements to show an artificial increase.
Concept Analogy. Here's an analogy which conceptualizes the main issue, and it's a scientific exactitude, not a joke: To claim that carbon dioxide is a heat trapping gas is like setting a jar of pickles on the kitchen table and saying it absorbs heat, therefore it heats the kitchen; and if you remove the jar of pickles, the kitchen will be as cold as the outdoors. What it means is heat going into carbon dioxide comes from the environment and goes into the environment. It isn't an addition of heat, and it has nothing to do with the rate of heat escaping into space. Narrative on Absurdities
No Scientifically Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming. CO2 saturates absorbing the limited radiation available to it in about ten meters (Heinz Hug). An increase in CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. Since scientists know this, a fake mechanism is contrived for the top of the troposphere based on thin spectrum shoulders. But again, an increase in CO2 only shortens the distance radiation travels, which does nothing significant to increase the temperature. And there is no way to get heat from the top of the troposphere, which is very cold, to ground level. And since this is also known, some climatologists revert back to the near-earth analysis. They can't figure out where it is happening, but it has to be happening, god said so.
None Dare Call It Fraud — Paul Driessen
Arctic Ice. The first thing fakes point to when criticized is ice melting over the Arctic. Ice melts over the Arctic about once a century or more. A miniscule temperature increase in the atmosphere has no ability to melt Arctic ice; only warm ocean currents melt Arctic ice.
Faulty Logic: Media types keep saying the physics is beyond question: More CO2 will block more radiation. Wrong. Radiation goes around greenhouse gasses like a river, not through them like a window. It's like a River, not a Window
Disputed Zone. Only a miniscule fraction of the CO2 is in question to the increase in heat, as shown in the yellow zone below. And it is up high in the atmosphere, not at ground level. There is no mechanism for getting heat at the top of the troposphere to ground level. See The Disputed Area.
If the atmosphere were entirely nitrogen and oxygen with no so-called greenhouse gasses, the top of the troposphere would be slightly colder, and the near-surface would be almost the same temperature, because radiation goes around the greenhouse gasses. Even the first 10% of the greenhouse gasses did not create much heat, because the atmosphere functions like a river, not a window.
Nature shows that greenhouse gasses do nothing, because precipitation has been increasing, and any heating of the atmosphere due to greenhouse gasses would have decreased precipitation. Increased snow and ice over the centers of Antarctica and Greenland have caused oceans to stop rising over the past few years.
CO2 does not accumulate for centuries. The claim is that half of the CO2 humans put in the air goes into the oceans. That's 4.3 GTC/Y. In 1970, humans produced 4.3 GTC/Y. Before 1970, oceans should have been removing more than humans were adding. It's oceans warming and releasing more that has been causing the recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. See 30% Fraud.
Oceans determine humidity.
Water vapor swamps carbon dioxide.
Greenhouse gasses do almost nothing.
Humidity Fraud
There was 5 times as much CO2 in the air during the dinosaur years, and 20 times as much before that, because oceans absorb CO2 and tie it up as calcium carbonate in coral reefs gradually forming limestone. There is now 1/3 as much CO2 in the air as plants need to grow on. Words
Thirty one thousand scientists signed a petition saying humans are not the cause of global warming. External Link
See some of them here.
Climate is controlled by the oceans, not the atmosphere.
The oceans have 1,000 times more heat capacity than the atmosphere. It means oceans can heat the air far more than air can heat the oceans. And it means carbon dioxide is not heating the oceans. Solar and geothermal energy heat the oceans.
Hansen and the modelers forgot to take into account oceans, which control about 98% of climate variation.
The fraud by officials is spelled out and documented for Congress by Monckton - 3.5M pdf.
Presentation for Congress by Monckton, March 30, 2009
Another Summary by Monckton, pdf
Important Fact: Oceans overwhelm all other influences on climate. Oceans, being 70% of the earth's surface, are the climate regulators influencing air temperature, humidity and precipitation. Yet the IPCC did not account for the effects of oceans, because they had no data or theory to go by, and they couldn't handle that much complexity. The total fraud of the IPCC is demonstrated by this fact.
The air does not heat the oceans; the oceans heat the air; because the oceans have a thousand times as much heat capacity as the atmosphere. And the claimed 0.6°C increase in atmospheric temperature is not much heat to be adding to anything, while satellites show less temperature increase, unless Hansen is screwing around with the numbers as usual. Thermometer Fraud
Volcanoes put 2.3% as much CO2 into the air as humans every year (gov source). If CO2 could accumulate, the volcanic amount in 43 years would equal the human amount for one year. Volcanoes have been doing it for 5 billion years, and humans for only 150 years. The supposed total amount of human accumulation (240 GT) is put into the atmosphere by volcanoes every 1,200 years. See Delicate Balance Fraud
Where does the volcanic CO2 go, if the human amount accumulates? If it is acidifying the oceans, why didn't volcanoes acidify the oceans many times over? See Acid in the Ocean Fraud
Nature puts 26 times as much CO2 in the air through decay and respiration as humans do through energy sources.
Replacing coal with imported natural gas: Methane is 23 times as strong of a so-called greenhouse gas as CO2. If 5% is boiled off to cool cryogenic containers during shipping, that's 0.05 x 23 = 115% plus the original 100% = 215% x 66% as much CO2 in a power plant = 142% as much of a supposed greenhouse effect from shipped natural gas as from using coal to generate electricity. And the ship would burn about 20-50% as much energy as the methane being shipped. That's more kids and pets dying from shipped natural gas than burning coal would produce. But the whole greenhouse argument is fraud, and it doesn't make diddly what source of energy is used.
Most people don't realize that this subject is not about science. The propagandists were doing the same thing before carbon dioxide came along. They were using ozone and other environmental concerns as a pretext for lowering the population of the globe to one tenth. Carbon dioxide brought their cause out of obscurity. So they don't care what the science is; and in fact, they refuse to allow scientific evidence to interfere with their agenda—and this includes a large number of scientists.
How could all of those scientists be wrong? They get paid to be wrong through billions of dollars from the government; and they are not a consensus.
$79 billion spent on fraud
How the Firing Works
Surface Temperatures over 800,000 Years
Each large cycle is an ice age (occurring every 100,000 yrs).
Now is above the dotted line on the right side. Oceans have been heating continuously since the last ice age. (These are really ocean temperatures based on ice volume used to estimate surface temperatures.) My impression is that the smaller blips are caused by solar energy, and the larger cycles are caused by heat from within the earth, perhaps related to electromagnetic energy. (See Electric Universe by Talbott and Thornhill)
graph source one
graph source two
Study shows oceans are the cause of temperature increase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oceans are Warming
Oceans are too complex and heterogeneous to determine averages, but nature shows the net effect.
There are two points of evidence indicating that oceans are warming: One is that precipitation is increasing, which means increased evaporation from warmer oceans; and the other is that ice is melting over oceans more than over land.
The oceans have a heat capacity 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. This means the air cannot easily heat the oceans, but oceans can easily heat the air. The atmosphere would have to heat a lot, before it could heat the oceans a little; yet the opposite is occurring. The atmosphere is only said to have warmed 0.6°C in recent times.
The ice which is suspended over the oceans is 90% submerged. To melt it, the water has to provide the heat, not the air. Not only is the water surrounding 90% of the ice, but water has the heat capacity needed to transfer a large amount of heat, while air has little heat capacity.
Ice is obviously melting rapidly at both north and south poles, but primarily over oceans. In localized areas, there is warming over land which is melting showpiece glaciers and northern tundra. But where it really matters, over the Antarctica land mass, ice is thickening. Over Greenland, both thickening and thinning of ice is occurring, but Greenland is small, and it's climate is influenced by an ocean current called the Gulf Stream.
(Over the past couple of years, the whole southern hemisphere has been cooling due to ocean currents shifting. Antarctic ice is re-accumulating, even over oceans around Antarctica, while the Arctic is melting rapidly.)
The ultimate test of whether the oceans or atmosphere is heating more is precipitation, and it is increasing. If the atmosphere were heating more than the oceans, there would be less precipitation, because warmer air holds more moisture. If the oceans are heating more than the air, more precipitation occurs, because evaporation increases, while there is less change in the amount of moisture the air will hold.
If the atmosphere heats more than the oceans, precipitation decreases.
If oceans heat more than the atmosphere, precipitation increases.
Fakes have been claiming that the miniscule 0.6°C (claimed) temperature increase is causing more water vapor to enter the air and creating extreme weather. Wrong. Air is almost never saturated, which means availability of water determines humidity, not air temperature. Furthermore, the claimed temperature increase is fraudulent.
Because of the increase in precipitation, ice is thickening over land at Antarctica and Greenland, as shown by satellites which use radar to measure thickness of ice. (Details and references are on Oceans Page).
Deep Ocean Heat Measured - (external)
Ice Ages
The present global warming is part of a natural ice age cycle. It's what always happens at the beginning of an ice age.
Ice ages cycle at precise 100 thousand year intervals. The next one is scheduled to begin now. The temperature reversal will begin between 100 and 200 years from now. The time can be determined from the amount of precipitation. Cold temperatures alone cannot create an ice age. There has to be more snow than can melt during the summer to create an accumulation of ice. There is not enough moisture in the air at this time to do that. But it's increasing. There should be enough precipitation in a century or two to produce more snow than can melt during the summers in low enough latitudes to reflect away enough solar energy to trigger an irreversible cool-down.
The amount of moisture in the air is increasing because oceans are warming. The warming of oceans is observable in the amount of ice melting at the poles. Measurement of long term trends show ocean temperatures to be peaking at a level where ice age reversals begin.
Such precise cycling of temperatures cannot be caused by environmental factors such as greenhouse gases, because there would be too many variations. The variations would be like trying to use the clouds for a calendar. The cause of ice ages must be some force which overrides environmental influences. Two possible sources are cyclic variation in solar energy and geothermal energy from inside the earth. An underlying factor is that ice age cycles correlate with a variable in the earth's orbit.
Orbital influences could explain either variations in solar energy or motion of a hot spot in the earth's core. No one has been able to clearly identify a factor in the orbit of the earth which would increase solar intensity in a way which correlates with ice age cycles, not the least reason being that there is a huge amount of complexity in several variables in the orbit of the earth. There are additional problems in explaining ice age cycles in terms of solar intensity. There are many environmental factors which interact with solar energy creating variations in the result. But it's not impossible that solar variations could override all environmental complexities and create the ice age cycles as shown on the graph.
There is however a clearer impression that the oceans are being heated from within the earth's core. The main factor creating this impression, besides total immunity of the cycles to environmental influences, is that all other changes show clear evidence of following the ocean temperature increases rather than responding to some other influence. The most significant factor is that precipitation is increasing.
Areas where weather patterns indicate warming are all microclimates resulting from nearby oceans being warmer. The most obvious example of this is Greenland and parts of Europe, which are warmed by the Gulf Stream. North America is showing milder winters due to less ice around Alaska, where the winter air often comes from. But satellite measurements show little warming in evaluating total global conditions. Global warming is occurring, but it's not the frying pan situation that it is portrayed as.
New Page: Ice Ages Re-evaluated
External links: Tilt in Earth's Orbit
Motion of Earth's Core
Milankovich Cycles
Deviations in the earth's orbit around the sun has a lot of complexities, which is sometimes given as an explanation for ice ages. A basic problem with that explanation is that the yearly average exposure to the sun is always about the same. Therefore, this concept implies that how the earth is exposed to the sun is more important than average exposure.
Here's a link which explains it as follows: When the northern hemisphere gets less exposure to the sun during the summer, there is less snow melting in the north. The accumulation of snow causes more sunlight to reflect away causing a global cool-down.
Those types of explanations seem too interpretive for the amount of complexity involved. Oceans currents are at least as significant as amount of solar energy in heating the Arctic, as recent melting indicates. Furthermore, it appears to be not cold temperatures but increased precipitation which triggers an ice age.
El Ninas (cold ocean water) create droughts, while El Ninos (warm ocean water) create floods. The oceans accumulate heat and release it as precipitation. So it could be increased solar energy that triggers the accumulation of snow rather than decreased solar energy.
Some Data
"Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year (giga tons of carbon per year). A recent update says 8.6 GT.
"To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C."
Notice that the oceans exchange ten times as much carbon with the atmosphere as humans produce (90GT vs. 8.6 GT). Exchange means regulation. And humans only add 1% as much CO2 to the atmosphere per year as already in it. If such a miniscule amount were as critical as propagandists claim, all life would have been destroyed long ago. Nature hasn't been sitting on a 1% knife edge for millions of years.
Reference:
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cost of Global Warming Alarmism
From Marc Morano, Senate Staffer
October 19, 2007
The Lieberman-Warner bill will burden American families with additional energy costs and significantly harm the United States economy...
CO2 cap-and-trade schemes were exposed by a recent CBO (Congressional Budget Office) study as creating massive wealth redistribution from the poor and working class to wealthier Americans. Further, according to a MIT study released earlier this year, cap-and-trade legislation introduced earlier in the Senate this year by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Senator Boxer (D-CA) would cost energy sector consumers an amount equal to $4,500 per American family of four. The same study found a bill sponsored by Senator Lieberman and Senator McCain (R-AZ) would cost consumers $3,500 per family of four. And a new EPA analysis shows the Lieberman - McCain bill would cost up to half a trillion dollars by 2030 and $1.3 trillion by 2050 - and that was based on assumptions designed to low-ball the number, begging the question of how high the real figure would be.
[Note: That's just one congressional bill at the starting point. It doesn't begin to total the cost of removing carbon dioxide from the air, particularly since the underlying motive of the agitators is to reduce the population of the globe by 90%. GN]
[A recent UN study concluded that the cost would be $45 trillion to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to stated goals by 2050.]
Markley-Waxman Cap-and-Trade Bill: Money doesn't move from Wall Street to consumer; it moves the other way. So why would we want Wall Street buying and selling energy derivatives?
A 10% tax on energy would not reduce CO2 one iota. People would need to be shoved out of the economy and into the gutters to reduce CO2 production. People can't live in the gutters in northern states. There would have to be a mass migration from northern states to southern states, so people can live under the bridges and in the heat tunnels to remove CO2 from the air.
Cap and Trade Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Change: The carbon creates the droughts, and the oxygen creates the floods. Since it does two things, they call it CO2. If you don't believe this, it's because you promote big oil and big tobacco and refuse to look at the science of the subject. The IPCC said so; and it's peer reviewed science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole purpose of science was to get fraud out of our faces. Now we have to pretend the carbon dioxide fraud is science. It's not science, because it's not the procedure which eliminates fraud.
Why it is Happening
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
External Links:
Climate Depot - news updates by Marc Morano
Icecap - Scientists Criticizing
Science and Public Policy - Monckton Articles
Climate Realists - Piers Corbyn et al
Isherwood - Perpsective and Quotes
World Climate Report - Patrick Michaels
MasterResource - political level criticisms
It's An Expensive Urban Legend — Roy Spencer
Climate Physics - Ed Berry
Railroaded Science - By Richard Lindzen
Al Gore is Wrong - By Richard Lindzen
Fraudulent Consensus - By James Inhofe
CO2 Absorption at 15 µM - By Heinz Hug
More Oceans Heating
Latest on Ice Core Measurements
Jaworowski: critic of ice core measurements
Heat in Earth's Interior
Fred Singer's Web Site
CO2 Science Org
I Love My Carbon Dioxide
A look at the Numbers
High Levels of CO2
El Nino and CO2
Political Criticism. May 24, 2006
Bio fuels Destroy Environments
Historical Summary
Raw Data on CO2 in Air
Extremes in Past
Solar energy as Cause
Tilt in Earth's Orbit
Oceans Heating at Antarctica
Deep Ocean Heat
CO2 Criticisms—Segalstad
Thermodynamics - PDF — Gerlich and Tscheuschner
Oceanograhy Information — by Anthoni
More updates, news and opinions, on Links Page
Sign a petition to stop "cap-and-trade"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to discuss this subject on discussion boards, Christopher Monckton is the incomparable reference. He takes up every element of this subject with exactitude and reliability, unlike the fakery of the alarmists. His material is found at Science and Public Policy Institute. Here are two good references of Monckton's:
Temperature Data and Criticism for Congress
Climategate: Caught Green-Handed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturation is a term physicists use when radiation of appropriate wavelength gets completely absorbed by a greenhouse gas, so adding more of such gas does nothing more. Radiation must travel a distance in the atmosphere before becoming completely absorbed. The more greenhouse gas there is, the shorter the distance radiation must travel to be completely absorbed by it. Heinz Hug stated in his study that carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it at the center of its main absorption peak in 10 meters at ground level. Higher in the atmosphere, where pressure is one tenth, the distance would be 10 times as far, or 100 meters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citations:
Novak, G. E. (2005). The Science of Global Warming in Perspective. The Internet. nov55.com/gbwm.html (continuously edited).
Novak, G. E. (1997). Science is Broken. The Internet. nov55.com/index.html (continuously edited).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming Science in Perspective. Earth Needs More CO2.
