Climate change scare mongers harp constantly on science, as if they were talking about Newton's laws of gravity, but you look in vain for an explanation of the supposed science. Nowhere in the media, alternative or mainstream, is anyone discussing the science of global warming. Only on specialized web sites produced by scientists is the science of global warming discussed.
Part of the problem is that scientists and journalists speak a different language. But it's more than that--it's a conspiracy to perpetrate fraud upon the public. Working scientists are not allowed to seriously criticize science; and this is true in all areas, not just global warming. Many scientists have tried and paid the price. Even the one's who don't get shoved out are marginalized and prevented from publishing. The examples are too numerous to list, and they are given on specialized web sites.
Since I have a background in science, and I'm not a working scientist, I've looked into the science of global warming, and here's what I've found:
Scientists were generally unconcerned about greenhouse gasses (GHGs) through most of the twentieth century, because GHGs saturate. Saturate means they absorb all radiation available to them, so more such gasses does nothing more. But then some persons took another look and said, maybe the shoulders on the absorption peaks don't saturate, at least not high in the atmosphere. The point is: The scientific concern is over very small and disputed effects, not the barn burner some people assume.
Tracing back the claimed, settled science leads to an equation which is supposed to show that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere produces 1.2 degrees C temperature increase, and this amount is then increased by some factor such as 3 due to feedback (forcing) by water vapor, which computer models attempt to determine. The basic equation is the natural log curve for 2 (doubling) times a number (constant). To get 1.2 degrees C., this number would be 2.31. But when the equation first showed up in print (in 1988), it used the constant 5.35 and showed 3 degrees C. That's too much discrepancy to be settled science. In fact, the infinite complexity of the atmosphere cannot be represented with a three component equation. The equation is nothing but a fudge factor for showing a desired result, not a law of physics.
It is common to find the most uninformed scientists tell us that the earth would be freezing cold without GHGs in the atmosphere claiming that nothing but GHGs heat the atmosphere. They assume that radiation is the only way heat gets into the atmosphere, and it would go zipping into space if GHGs were not stopping it. They missed the fact that most of the heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation. More knowledgeable scientists know this, but it shows how vacuous the assumptions about climate science can be.
Simply absorbing radiation means nothing, because it doesn't matter how heat gets into the atmosphere. If it doesn't get there one way, it will get there another way.
Temperature of the atmosphere is not determined by the amount of heat entering it nor by the amount leaving but by an equilibrium between the two
In areas of science which are highly developed, such as biochemistry, equilibrium is found to control a large part of the results. So equilibrium is highly studied in science. But climatologists seem to have overlooked the concept. The forces of equilibrium are not inconspicuous in the control of atmospheric temperature. It is quite apparent that the temperature of the atmosphere is not determined by the amount of heat entering it nor by the amount leaving but by an equilibrium between the two which nature establishes and humans cannot comprehend. This equilibrium temperature prevents humans (or variations in GHGs) from altering the net-equivalent temperature of the atmosphere.
Physicists agree that there must be such a temperature. Based on the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, which says how much radiation leaves any surface at any temperature, they determined that the 235 watts per square meter of energy entering the earth from the sun must be balanced by 235 W/m≤ exiting earth into space; and this amount of radiation leaves from a surface which is -19 degrees C. The atmosphere is -19 degrees C at a height of about 5 kilometers. So climatologists claim there is a zone at that height from which 235 W/m≤ of radiation exits into space. Global warming then occurs when heat is trapped near the surface and pushes that zone up higher in the atmosphere.
There is no such zone. Nothing could keep radiation from leaving at other temperatures, at other heights. It would leave at -18 degrees C more easily than it leaves at -19 degrees C, etc. And there is no way to get energy into the supposed zone for escaping. What would keep the zone form getting colder as radiation escapes?
Real equilibrium balances all of that. As radiation escapes, it creates cooling; so less radiation escapes from that point, and more radiation escapes from other points. Balancing it all means that heat leaves from all parts of the atmosphere creating a gradient of temperatures. Real equilibrium removes the zones and produces a degree of uniformity. Of course, there are layers and inversions in the atmosphere; but these are due to short term effects, while everything must move toward a temperature which causes the same amount of energy to leave the planet as enters. This type of equilibrium, which I'm calling real equilibrium, prevents humans (or GHGs) from changing the temperature of the atmosphere.
Temperature of the atmosphere is self-regulating
In other words, the temperature of the atmosphere is self-regulating, which means humans cannot change it. If the temperature were not self regulating, it would go to one extreme or the other--extremely hot or cold. The so-called delicate balance which humans supposedly upset is absurd. There is nothing delicate about climate, and there is no balance to greenhouse gasses or their effects.
Self-regulating doesn't mean stable and unchanging. Climatic conditions vary immensely. Part of the change is due to a slow response. If temperatures move in one direction, they are gradually pulled back in the other direction. But there are also natural forces which change the regulated temperature. The most significant of these is the force which Roy Spencer attributes climate change to, which is cloud cover. Clouds reflect sunlight back into space, so less actually adds energy to the earth. Clouds also trap some heat in. So they create short term heating and long term cooling, but scientists do not know how to evaluate the net effects of clouds.
The amount of cloud cover is determined by the amount of water vapor oceans add to the atmosphere, which in turn is determined by surface temperatures of the oceans. Ocean surface temperatures vary a lot, and scientists do not know why.
So the science of climate change is an irresolvable mystery, but what should be known about it is that humans do not have the slightest ability to influence the result.
I have a web site which explains these points further here:
climatebasics.com.
Gary Novak is mushroom scientist with Masters Degree in Microbiology and does independent research on a farm where he lives. Gary runs Science is Broken and Global Warming Science. Gary can be reached at: g432@nov47.com
