Criminal standards of science including global warming fraud

By Gary Novak

Physics corruption was largely abstract and academic, until it spread into the global warming issue, which is now resulting in energy systems being destroyed and economies being bankrupt based on scientific fraud. Climatologists do not have the concepts or procedures which would give them the slightest ability to theorize or measure what carbon dioxide did in the atmosphere before or after humans influenced the result.

There are no mechanisms in science for correcting the problem of fraud. The fraud stems from total unaccountability to anyone outside science. Scientists who criticize are denied grants and the ability to publish.

Four centuries of unaccountability has turned physics into a culture of criminality. There has not been an iota of physics published since Newton's time which has not been totally in error, usually with the intent to be in error due to incompetent persons forcing their way into science to monger power and attacking the rationality which they cannot handle. The biological science were correctable, which allowed truth to prevail, until recently, as power mongers have taken over all of science and are shoving out real scientists.

In 1686, an erroneous definition of energy was formulated by Gottfried Leibniz through misrepresentation. I show mathematical proof of the error on my web site. In 1845, James Joule supposedly substantiated the Leibniz definition of energy by stirring water in a wooden bucket to determine the amount of heat produced. Joule did not have the slightest ability to conduct such a measurement, as I explain on my web site. Supposedly, later experiments show Joule to be only off by four parts per thousand; but since there is no such number, it shows that physicists are contriving it to this day. There is no explanation available to the public for the methodology used to measure the number (the mechanical equivalent of heat, or Joule's constant), and all imaginable procedures would have a very large error, like 10-50%, while the given number is 4.1868 Newton-meters per calorie, implying 0.0024% imprecision.

Errors such as Planck's constant appear to be misinterpretations of the influence of light upon matter, except there are admitted contradictions in claiming light contains energy packets called photons. Packets (photons) must have length, width and height, while energy cannot.

Frauds in physics abandon any pretense of rationality with relativity, where the starting point serves no purpose but to muddle the subject, while monumental results are synthesized out of nothing. The claimed E=mc² is nothing but a vague parallel to the misdefinition of kinetic energy with no relationship to anything in relativity. Since I show the definition of energy to be incorrect due to a squaring of velocity, a real parallel should not have the velocity of light squared; so it would be E=mc. When physicists apply Einstein's equation to determine the amount of energy in fusion reactions, they get a huge quantity due to the squaring of the velocity of light. When they conducted an experiment using lasers, they got no significant energy from the result, as would be expected with the incorrect definition of energy and the non-squaring of light. It means assumptions about the amount of energy in fusion reactions are misdirected by the misdefinition of energy being paralleled in supposed relativity.

With such standards of fraud being engrained in physics, the concept of greenhouse gases creating global warming was a total contrivance with no relationship to valid science. The entire subject is based on modeling climate with infinite complexities being mentioned without specific descriptions of procedures used for evaluation or why the points are relevant. The absurdities show the intent of muddling the subject with irrelevancies and contriving the result out of the muddle.

Global warming science was divided into two parts-a primary effect by carbon dioxide (or other greenhouse gases) absorbing energy and infinite secondary effects referred to as feedback which enhance the primary effect. The sometimes-stated analysis is that the primary effect was that humans increased the global average temperature by 0.2°C, while feedback increased it by a factor of three to 0.6°C. But a consistent logic does not exist. A determination of the primary effect cannot be located with a consistent or credible logic. Sometimes, such as Hansen et al, 1984 and 1988, "empirical observation" is said to be the source of the primary effect, which means a supposed temperature increase of 0.6° since the industrial revolution combined with 100 parts per million carbon dioxide increase sets the pattern for the future. But empirical observation includes secondary (feedback) effects, while it is used to define the primary effect.

No real scientists would assume that all temperature increase of the recent past was due to greenhouse gases without some method of verification. Instead of verification, a fake hockey stick graph was constructed to indicate a totally flat temperature leading up to the industrial revolution and then an upward bend. The upward bend was used to convince the unwary that humans are destroying the planet. Over recent years, the hockey stickgraph was so discredited that it has largely been abandoned, while the primary effect of CO2 has no valid origins.

A second method of contriving the primary effect was the use of "radiative transfer equations." Such equations will not yield anything resembling the result in question. Radiative transfer equations have the purpose of determining how radiation is depleted while a gas is increased in concentration. The rate of radiation depletion tells nothing of the amount of heat produced by the radiation. There is no description of methodology. Endless modeling of atmospheric influences is mixed with the claimed derivation of the primary effect through radiative transfer equations. There is no logic to applying atmospheric complexities to the primary effect. The descriptions serve no other purpose than muddling the subject and contriving the result with no accountable methodology.

In the descriptions for the derivation of the primary effect, Ramanathan et all, 1979, page 4949, say warming is "due to the enhancement of the CO2 longwave opacity." Opacity (absorption of radiation) has infinite complexities which will not indicate a primary effect. The radiation moves from ten meters at the center of the primary absorption peak to longer distances on the shoulders. Changing the distance is not increasing the heat. The source of emission is cooled, while the absorbing point is heated.

Ramanathan et al, 1979, also state, "The net radiative flux at the tropopause and at the surface decreases due to increased CO2, and this decrease of course denotes a heating." They are saying that the planet is cooled by radiation which leaves from the tropopause and surface. This description omits radiation leaving throughout the troposphere, which is represented as ninety percent of the radiation which cools the planet on the NASA chart referred to as the "Earth's Energy Budget." Missing ninety percent of the radiation which cools the planet not only induces a one thousand percent error in calculations, but more importantly, it misses the equilibrium effect which nullifies the entire concept of greenhouse gases heating the atmosphere.

The obvious logic is that the planet is cooled by radiation which goes around greenhouse gases, not through them. Radiation going around greenhouse gases creates an equilibrium effect, where radiation leaving the planet equals radiation entering from the sun. Equilibrium sets the temperature of the atmosphere uninfluenced by greenhouse gases.

Ramanathan et al, 1979, state, "the enhancement of the CO2 longwave opacity occurs in the 12- to 18- µm, 9- to 10- µm and 7.6-µm spectral regions." Using a bandwidth for the primary absorption peak for CO2 at 12- to 18- µm is absurd, as it is normally shown to be 14-16 µm. This band cannot widen with increases in CO2, because the energy state of the molecules cannot change. In fact, the bandwidth significantly decreases with height in the atmosphere, because lower pressure reduces collisions which modify the energy state of the molecules. The extremely wide bandwidth given by Ramanathan et al, 1979, points to an erroneous concept, where spectrum analysis was done high in the atmosphere using word war II propeller aircraft, and all they got was engine noise with wide sine waves.

Determining the primary effect through radiative transfer equations was supposedly refined by Myhre et al, 1998. Again, no methodology was described beyond endless blather on modeling atmospheric influences which have no conceivable relationship to the primary effect. The authors produced the reference for the primary effect which is now used throughout climatology and is assumed to be without question. It is stated as a three component fudge factor representing a curve, which is this: Heat increase = 5.35 ln C/C0. Strangely, heat is given as watts per square meter, while the atmosphere has no surface. To not convert into units of mass, such as kilograms or cubic meters, shows a detachment from scientific standards which would only be possible with an attitude of deliberately subverting the process. Real science would create unmeetable demands on every point resulting no ability to realistically study the claims being made. Rather than meet those demands, climatologist chose convenience procedures aligned upon rationalism with no concern for legitimacy.

If a primary effect did exist, it could not be determined by chasing heat through the atmosphere through modeling procedures, as publications pretend to be doing. Climatologists have no ability to unravel the complexities of the infinite and minute atmospheric effects which they refer to, and if they could, those influences would only relate to secondary effects. Yet such influences are applied to publications on the primary effect, with no clarifications as to why.

Besides equilibrium, another reason why the primary effect does not exist is saturation, which means molecules absorb all radiation available to them, so more of such molecules cannot absorb more radiation. Heinz Hug indicates that the center of the main absorption peak for carbon dioxide absorbs all radiation available to it in traveling ten meters from the point of origin. Farther down on the shoulders of the absorption peaks, where there are fewer carbon dioxide molecules, the distance increases in proportion to the number of molecules. Doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reduces those distance to one half. Changing the distance is not increasing the heat.

Nowhere in the climatology which promotes the greenhouse effect is the distance radiation travels mentioned. Any mention of distance would immediately prove the entire subject to be a fraud. Not only is a change in distance not a change in heat, but the increase in distance on the shoulders of the absorption peaks dilutes the heat proportionately, which lowers the temperature produced by the heat proportionately. There is a compounded effect which occurs like this: Where there are one hundredth as many carbon dioxide molecules with shoulder characteristics (perhaps absorbing at 14.3 µm instead of the 15 µm at the center of the absorption peak) the distance radiation must travel is one hundred times that which is absorbed in the center of the peak.

This means the distance is one thousand meters instead of ten meters. This also means that one hundredth of the heat can be attributed to those molecules. Therefore, the temperature increase attributable to such shoulder molecules is one hundredth of the heat multiplied times one hundredth as much temperature increase for each unit of heat. One hundredth of one hundredth is one ten thousandths of the temperature increase. If the primary effect of CO2 before human influence is 1°C, as sometimes claimed, the shoulder effect mentioned here would be 0.0001°C. Yet this effect is said to be the global warming created by humans adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Climatologists who promote the greenhouse effect have produced three responses to the concept of saturation. At first, they said the shoulders of the absorption peaks are not saturated, as explained in the above paragraph. This concept would not stand up to criticism; so they said the effect occurs high in the atmosphere, where saturation does not occur, and they generally claim this location is nine kilometers up. Even at that height, the distances only increase by a factor of three, since the atmospheric pressure is thirty percent of that at sea level. Increasing the distances by three does not escape the effects of saturation. But even worse, to get the heat back to the near surface requires radiating it downward. There has to be twenty four times as much temperature increase at nine kilometers as occurs near the surface, by simple calculations. Such temperature increase has never been found. But since oceans will absorb most of the back radiation, the actual amount would have to be thousands of times higher to get a 1°C temperature increase in the near earth atmosphere.

The third rationalization is that satellites measure key radiation escaping from nine kilometers up, and this shows that saturation is not occurring. Firstly, saturation can easily be determined by measuring in a test tube in a laboratory. Such rock solid science cannot be contradicted by wishy washy interpretations of satellite absorption. 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.

In 2001, the IPCC (AR3) stated that saturation exists in these terms: "Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band's wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation..."

In other words, the rationalizers cannot get around saturation, and it precludes all other effects. Saturation means the primary effect of increased carbon dioxide heating the atmosphere is zero. This result is only evident when distance is considered. Without distance, muddled effects attempt to mask the truth and contrive an effect where none exists. With zero primary effect, there are no secondary effects. All of the claimed studies of such an effect are total contrivances.

Once contrivers get a dark pit constructed, there is never a flaw that comes out of it. Out in the open, they cannot produce rationality. That's why the dark pits without a description of methodology are a fraud in science.

Gary Novak