The origins of global warming

By Gary Novak 

The origins of global warming. 50586.jpeg

Oceans are heating, not the atmosphere. Oceans put water into the air for creating rainfall. The warmer the oceans, the more rainfall there is someplace else.

Oceans have been warming since the last ice age ended 20 thousand years ago. In fact, oceans constantly acquire heat, and only the melting of glaciers cool them back down.

The sun's energy heats the surface of the oceans to a significant depth of about 10 meters (30 feet). The bottom of the oceans are heated from the earth's core, called geothermal heat.

Layers of heat in the oceans do not mix easily. There are rivers and mountains of hot and cold water in the oceans. When warm water accumulates on the surface of an ocean,a lot of rainfall results someplace. When cold water accumulates on the surface of an ocean, droughts occur someplace.

Starting in the late seventies, the surface of the Pacific Ocean was getting warmer, which resulted in more rainfall in the USA. Corn could be grown farther west, where sparse grasslands were normally used for cattle and wheat (which I could directly observe, since I was living there). The winters were warmer, and the summers were cooler, because increased precipitation does that. Clouds create cooling during the summer by reflecting away sunlight, and they create warmer winters by adding heat through precipitation. In other words, weather extremes were less and storms were fewer.

The weather started to revert back to normal in the USA in 1998. Droughts, summer heat and winter cold became more prevalent.

None of this was noticed by climatologists, because they use global and yearly averages. All of these effects average out to no change. Yet the effects were significant. Averaging is nothing but an idiots endeavor. The average motion of a meat grinder is zero.

The recent concept of global warming caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) sort of began with James Hansen, who published a meaningless paper in 1988. He used a three component fudge factor to indicate that so much heating would occur for increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. The origins of the fudge factor cannot be pinned down, but it correlates with assumptions about past change. This indicates that the fudge factor is simply an extension of the assumed past into the future. In other words, Hansen assumed that 0.6°C temperature increase occurred when CO2 increased by 100 parts per million. So the fudge factor says those relationships will always occur as CO2 increases.

Nothing about Hansen's assumptions or fudge factor are valid. If temperatures really did increase by 0.6°C, the cause could be anything. Temperatures always change. There was a "little ice age" 400 years ago, and coming out of it would have caused some temperature increase.

To promote Hansen's claim, propagandists in science erased the little ice age and contrived a totally flat temperature record going back several centuries. There are no flat temperatures in nature. To create the flat graph, fakes in science used inappropriate data from tree rings in northern Russia. They said only a temperature increase would make the trees grow faster (and the rings wider), since the environment was cold. That's not valid science. Usually, trees grow faster due to more moisture, not warmer temperatures. Scientists can't just guess at something. They need to establish validity of procedures through much testing. Climatologists haven't been doing that. Furthermore, the result was no change. The most likely reason for getting no change would be that the methodology was incapable of measuring anything.

The flat result for the past several centuries was grafted onto a claimed increase in recent times. The result is called a "hockey stick graph," because it is straight for awhile and then goes upward. A similar hockey stick graph was created for fake CO2 measurements using ice cores for study. Ice cores are not a valid method of measuring CO2, because CO2 is not stable in ice. But it sure is a good way to get a straight line, since it measures nothing.

There is no identifiable publication in science establishing the so-called greenhouse effect for carbon dioxide. There are several hinge-points for fools in the subject. One of them is the calculation of heat in the atmosphere using the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. It is a misapplication of the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, and the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is grossly in error. Simple observations indicate that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is about 20 times too large.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant indicates how much heat as radiation is given off by matter at a particular temperature. It says the global average temperature of 15°C (about that of a dark, cold basement) will give off 390 watts per square meter. That's 40% as much as the sun puts on black asphalt at the equator at noon. It isn't happening.

Fake scientist apply the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to the earth's temperature in an extremely obtuse way. They say that without an atmosphere, the earth's surface would be -18°C, because solar energy would be re-emitted at that temperature. Measurements now show the near-surface temperature to be +15°C. Supposedly, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere made that much difference. The overwhelming fraud of that assumption is in claiming nothing else matters but CO2. The nitrogen and oxygen, which are 99% of the atmosphere, would have held in heat without CO2 in it.

The atmosphere holds heat, and it doesn't need CO2 to do it. It picks up heat from the surface through conduction and convection. This circulates the heat through the atmosphere for a height of about one kilometer (half mile) quite rapidly, and somewhat higher, more slowly. Evaporation from the oceans does something similar in moving heat into the atmosphere.

By contrast, the heat on the surface only goes a few millimeters downward. In other words, there is very little holding capacity for heat on the surface compared to the atmosphere. Heat escapes more easily without as much holding capacity.

On the basis of these false assumptions, alarmists climatologists try to balance heat inflow with heat outflow. They get about 20 times too much radiation due to the error in the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. This left almost no energy for conduction and convection from the surface of the earth. Without significant conduction and convection, how does heat get into the atmosphere?Only greenhouse gases can be imagined as the means.

The whole concept of greenhouse gases heating the atmosphere is based on the inability of fake scientists to imagine how else heat would get into the atmosphere. They are misusing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant in applying it to the subject, because it only applies to radiation from solids under "black box" conditions. The surface of the earth is extremely heterogeneous and will not emit radiation by an average of a constant. Water is 70% of the earth's surface. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant was not designed for liquids or gases but only solid surfaces of homogeneous materials.

The reason why the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is off by a factor of about 20 is because it was designed more than a century ago, being said to be an offshoot of Plank's constant. Plank and others were making up constants off the top of their heads with almost no ability to substantiate their claims. There are huge amounts of complexity which are erased in reducing radiant effects to a numerical constant. In Plank's time, without modern technology including cooling fans, the errors would not have been so obvious. Such effects cannot be measured now days, because the large amount of complexity does not reduce to a constant. So physicists keep using the fake constants of the past.

Gary Novak