Towards An Honest Assessment of Global Warming aka Climate Change

The public was introduced to the subject by Al Gore, who has never studied an iota of science in his life. He assumed that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation which would otherwise go into space. Less heat going out supposedly meant more heat staying in. So CO2 was called a “heat trapping gas.” The public assumed such logic must be correct and allowed Al Gore to teach it to the kids in the schools through his movie. 

Radiation only moves 10 meters before being absorbed by CO2. Moving heat around is not increasing it. The planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases. It doesn’t matter what the wavelength is; the heat leaves at a variety of wavelengths until the amount of heat leaving equals the amount entering, where it stabilizes-an effect called equilibrium. 

As opponents raised questions, proponents said, we do not have time for the science, we must act before it is too late. As the questions increased, a corrective statement was added-“the science is settled.” The science never was settled; the statement was only propaganda, but it was believed as it was repeated. 

When looking for the settled science; it cannot be found. The origins of the recent science trace back to James Hansen et al, 1988, who published a (a href=”http://nov79.com/gbwm/equations.html“)fudge factor for calculating the amount of heat produced by carbon dioxide. A fudge factor is not science. There is no three component equation which will properly represent the complexities of climate. When trying to figure out where the fudge factor came from, it vaguely parallels a past assumed increase in temperature.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/18-11-2013/126171-global_warming_fraud-0/

The second shoe is preparing to drop to shatter the world view of so-called Progressives.  Coming, global revelations will demonstrate the fraud behind the theory of man-caused, catastrophic, global warming, just like the real world has shattered the falsehoods behind Obamacare.

That is because the underlying reason for both frauds was the same: to expand government power.  Enablers went along with the fraud in both cases for the same underlying reason – political correctness.  In both cases, going along with the cause for the assumed public good without raising questions was considered the politically correct thing to do for all “good” people.  Soon the enablers in both cases will have to pay the price for participating in and perpetuating the fraud.

the theory of man-caused, catastrophic, global warming is embraced not because of any “science,” (that sham is for the “useful idiots,”), but because it is a justification for a government takeover of the energy industry, with massive increases in regulation, taxes and government spending.  The United Nations loves it because it inspires fantasies of the UN growing up to be a world government, with real government powers of global taxation, spending and regulation, all “to save the planet.”  Scientists who go along with the cause are rewarded not only with praise for their worthy social conscience, but also with altogether billions in hard, cold cash (government and environmental grants), for their cooperation in helping to play the “useful idiots.”  Moreover, many academic scientists are “progressives” themselves, and so favor sharp increases in government spending, taxes and regulation, because they are certain they know how to run your life better than you do.

That is what the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is all about.  On September 27, the IPCC issued the final version of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) for its fifth comprehensive Assessment Report (AR-5) since 1992 on the supposed science of anthropogenic, catastrophic, global warming.  But the IPCC has intellectual competition now.  A peer group of independent, private sector scientists has organized the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).  Earlier in September, the NIPCC issued its own comprehensive, voluminous report on the science of climate change, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, published by the Heartland Institute.

If you are a true believer in anthropogenic, catastrophic, global warming, you don’t know what you are talking about unless you also have at least looked through the hundreds of pages of calm, dispassionate science in Climate Change Reconsidered II, which also reviews the peer-reviewed literature on climate change.  Go ahead, I dare you.  What are you afraid of?

Now 4 lead contributing authors of Climate Change Reconsidered II, Drs. Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, and Willie Soon, have issued a Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 “Summary for Policymakers.”  They find that “the new SPM reveals the IPCC has retreated from at least 11 alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists prominently associated with the IPCC.  The SPM also contains at least 13 misleading or untrue statements, and 11 further statements that are phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.”

For example, the authors report, “The IPCC concedes for the first time that a 15 year long period of no significant warming occurred since 1998 despite a 7% rise in carbon dioxide (CO2).”  The authors explain, “The statement represents a significant revision in the IPCC thinking, because their concern about dangerous warming rests upon the assumption that temperature increases will proceed in parallel fashion with CO2 increases.”  Climate Change Reconsidered II documents that the same official temperature records used by the IPCC going back over 100 years, and proxy temperature records going back deep into the geologic time scale, show that temperatures have not changed in parallel with CO2 levels.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/11/12/the-coming-revelation-of-the-global-warming-fraud-resembles-the-obamacare-lie/

There is an unsolvable problem at the starting point of global warming claims. There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. 

Even if greenhouse gases created some global warming, they long ago did all they can do. They absorbed all radiation available to them, so more of such gases cannot absorb more radiation. This effect is called saturation. 

Carbon dioxide absorbs all infrared radiation available to it by the time radiation travels 10 meters from its point of origin (http://nov79.com/gbwm/hnzh.html#ten). Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can do nothing more than shorten the distance to 5 meters. Shortening the distance is not increasing the heat. 

The first attempt by climatologists to rationalize saturation was to claim saturation does not occur on the shoulders of the absorption peaks, because few CO2 molecules have the unusual stretched bonds which absorb at those wavelengths. After numerous attempts to explain such a mechanism failed, the rationale shifted to the upper atmosphere, where saturation supposedly does not occur. Contradictions go from bad to worse in the upper atmosphere. 

The most important fact about global warming is that the subject was contrived without a scientific mechanism being known. It means there was no scientific reason for contriving the subject. There still is no known mechanism, while everything on the subject continues to be contrived. 

The near-earth explanation fails due to extremely thin CO2 concentrations on the shoulders of the absorption peaks. Shoulder molecules spread miniscule amounts of heat over long distances resulting in no significant temperature increase. 

If 5% of CO2 molecules are assumed to have shoulder characteristics, they would be spread over 20 times as much distance as the other 95%.   Not only do they represent 1/20th the heat captured by CO2, but they produce 1/20th as much temperature change with each unit of heat, since they are spread through 20 times as much atmosphere. Multiplying 1/20 times 1/20 equals 1/400th as much temperature change as the other 95% of the CO2. 

The total temperature increase resulting from doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is said to be 1°C. Does this mean shoulder molecules are doing this? If so, the other 95% must have increased the temperature by 400°C. How do climatologists resolve these contradictions? They don’t. Which is why this subject is not science; it’s religion and politics-religion because 97% of the scientists could not be wrong, and politics because energy systems are destroyed and economies are bankrupt imposing the fraud upon everyone. 

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/07-11-2013/126075-climate_science_fraud-0/

Global warming appears to have stopped, about ten years ago.  Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising.  Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.  They are in a panic to find statistical data to substantiate their loony AGW theories; and they are apparently not loathe to making stuff up.

http://www.examiner.com/article/global-warming-fraud-uncovered

Related articles

• IPCC warns not to stop chemtrails, aka ‘solar radiation management’ (nsnbc.me)
• Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information (oneworldchronicle.com)
• Scientific Critique of IPCC’s 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’ (wattsupwiththat.com)
• The Coming Revelation Of The ‘Global Warming’ Fraud Resembles The Obamacare Lie (forbes.com)
• Non-governmental climate scientists slam the UN’s IPCC (americanthinker.com)
• Philippines: Apocalypse now! (sunstar.com.ph)