Why Global Warming Science is Nothing but Fraud
4 December 2013
There is no real science to be found in the subject of global warming. Modern studies of global warming could be traced back to Charney et al., 1979 . This paper was produced by a study group created by the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Climate Research Board, USA, charged with the task of producing an assessment of the 'carbon dioxide/climate issue'.
The paper of Charney et al., 1979, consists of nothing but modelling. It's exactly the same as dozens of other modelling studies on the complexities of the atmosphere, each having its own peculiarities on minutia. Such modelling is nothing resembling science. Numerous factors are admitted to be too vague to be included. The factors which are included are so complex that the numbers used are nothing but guesses. If politicians want the best guess possible, that doesn't make it science. (http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf)
Modelling is the opposite of science, as it is a method of imposing subjective motives onto people. Science has the purpose of putting an end to that fraud.
The most significant fact about these studies, and hence the rest of global warming science, is that there is no valid starting point. Before a model can be created, a number must be used to represent the heat produced by carbon dioxide. That number is not even mentioned in the papers describing the models including Charney et al., 1979. To not mention it is scientific fraud.
Commenters will sometimes state that there is such a number referring to it as climate sensitivity and stating that it is 3 Ī1.5°C with doubling of CO2 as indicated by Charney et al., 1979. That number is given by Charney et al., 1979, but it is not the starting point of their modelling, it is the end result. So where does the starting point come from? There is no clue in Charney et al., 1979, nor in Hansen at al, 1984 or 1988.
In 1998, Myhre et al. claimed to derive such a number as a three component equation (fudge factor) for increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. They used radiative transfer equations as their methodology. Such equations will not yield anything resembling the result in question. Radiative transfer equations have the purpose of determining how radiation is depleted as a gas is increased in a test tube in a laboratory. The rate of radiation depletion tells nothing of the amount of heat produced by the radiation.
One of the implications is that each photon of radiation will produce so much heat when it strikes a molecule of CO2. There is an infinite amount of complexity in the atmosphere that turns that assumption into absurdity. Moving energy around through radiation is not increasing the heat. Emitting points are cooled, while absorbing points are heated. Most radiation absorbed by CO2 originates in the atmosphere. About 30% of black body radiation goes around greenhouse gases. 92% of black body radiation goes around CO2. All radiation absorbed by the atmosphere is converted into black body radiation quite rapidly - no one knows exactly how fast.
For example, any heat up high must be 24°C hotter to back-radiate 1°C near the surface (http://nov79.com/gbwm/satn.html#upp), without considering absorption by oceans, and several thousand degrees when accounting for oceans absorbing most of it. The trivial use of radiative transfer equations by Myhre et al., 1998, does not even look at such factors. They did mention clouds, which shows that they needed to account for everything in the atmosphere, while they mentioned almost nothing.
In actuality, the number which should represent the amount of heat produced by additions of CO2 in the atmosphere is zero. This means the starting point for all modelling should be zero, while secondary effects do not exist for zero.
The reason for the number zero is saturation. It means radiation travels a short distance before being totally absorbed by CO2. At the center of the main absorption peak for CO2, radiation travels 10 meters before being totally absorbed (http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#ten). Farther down on the absorption peak, where there is one tenth as many CO2 molecules, the distance for total absorption is ten times as far, which is 100 meters. Where there are one thousandth as many CO2 molecules, the distance is 10 kilometres.
Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reduces these distances to one half. Reducing the distance is not increasing the heat.
Alarmists have three rationalizations for saturation. At first, they said saturation does not occur on the shoulders of the absorption peaks, which is where the increase in heat occurs (http://nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html#ipcc). That argument would not stand up to criticism (http://nov79.com/gbwm/satn.html#nrs); so they changed the story and said the effect occurs high in the atmosphere, variously 5 or 9 km up, where saturation does not occur. Both effects are absurd, because they require extremely thin distribution of CO2 molecules, while spreading the heat thin reduces the temperature to irrelevance.
So alarmists said satellites show that saturation is not occurring, because they pick up key radiation showing that it is not being absorbed. Sometimes, the radiation is said to be emitted from 9 km up, which is where the heating is supposed to be occurring. Satellites cannot produce such information. They cannot determine the height from which narrow bands of radiation come from.
Satellites are said to show the height from which total heat comes from, but the height is determined by shift in wavelength. Shorter wavelengths do not travel as far through the atmosphere. But CO2 only absorbs very narrow bands of radiation, which means shift in wavelength will not indicate the height. In other words, satellites will pick up something from the top of the stratosphere regardless of saturation, and there is no indication of saturation in the result.
If scientists were simply wrong about saturation, there would be no problem. Science is designed to deal with errors. Errors are held as tentative assumptions until verification methods are developed. But the problem is that there is nothing in the science of global warming which is not in error. All scientific knowledge shows that there is no effect. The entire subject is contrived.
The worst problem is that the methodology including communication standards is so corrupt that errors cannot be dealt with as errors are dealt with in science. Pretending to model a result while there is no starting point is total fraud, regardless of the unreliability of modelling. Covering up the absence of a real starting point is additional fraud.
Publications on modelling, which is the entire basis of global warming science, do not describe methods; they only describe results. There is no way to determine reliability or meaning without knowing the methods. Descriptions will include numbers and equations, as if a method were known, but the 'as ifs' are never described. Such standards are fraud in science, because they leave no means of evaluation. Describing results without methods is nothing but a news blurb being published as if it were science.
It's not a question of how the computer program works; it's a question of what are modellers feeding into the program and why. They won't say; and that's a total fraud. The reason why they won't say is because the atmosphere is so complex that there is no scientific analysis to determine what is happening within it. By not describing methods, frauds don't have to admit that science is being replaced with total contrivance.