Here's a new page: Summary In Simple Words
This is a wordy explanation for anyone who doesn't grasp the short statements.
Links to references are found on "Global Warming Main Page".
There is not a scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide causing global warming.
The atmosphere cannot heat the oceans, because it does not have enough heat capacity. The claimed 0.6°C increase in atmospheric temperature is not significant for heating the oceans.
James Hansen (the chief modeler) forgot to take oceans into account, because he didn't learn proper standards of science as a physicist. Physics drifted into super engineering, because the basic questions are impenetrable, like what is force, inertia or voltage. Engineers sell a product which tests their results. They are like salesmen. Science standards are on a different planet, where abstract realities are studied through meticulous standards of verifiability and accountability and aligned upon evolving, basic knowledge. Hansen doesn't know that anyone needs to verify his results in an open and accountable way, which tends to be the problem throughout the subject of global warming. The claimed scientists assume their results are proprietary, as they would be in engineering, but which is absurd in science. What Science is
A behind the scenes clincher for the contrivers is that CO2 levels are supposedly higher than any time over the past 650,000 years, which means humans are doing something nature does not do. They do not deny that humans add 1% as much CO2 per year as already in the air, or that humans add 3% of all sources, the other 97% resulting mostly from decay. The net effect is that natural CO2 supposedly does the equivalent of filling a bucket, and everything humans add is overflow.There is nothing similar to a fill level for CO2 in the atmosphere.Natural variations are greater than the human input. Oceans are causing the increase in CO2 in the air by releasing more CO2 as they get warmer due to solar and geothermal heating.
details below
|
Very seldom does anyone look into the science of global warming, not the least reason being that for all but the most technical specialists, there's no place to look. The promoters of the global warming hype had a responsibility to explain the science of their claims. But they did the opposite—they skipped over the science with the flimsy claim that the science is settled, and action must be taken before the "tipping point" occurs. Even if the science were settled, people needed to know what it is. Science is more than a yes/no question. All of the complexities are relevant to how the subject is handled, and to claim anything in science is settled is absurd.
Obviously, the global warming agitators don't have a clue what the science of the subject is; they have an agenda, and carbon dioxide brought their agenda out of obscurity in spades. Why kick a live horse when it's running so good. Their agenda is green environmentalism, but that to is phony. Nothing they do is green by either the criterion of restoring nature or reducing energy and resource consumption. They want to spend any amount of money to produce green, while the more they spend, the more wasteful they get. They don't take all of the factors into account, and with global warming, they took none of the science into account.
Water Vapor Explained
The official source which supposedly ends all discussion of the subject is the IPCC. They claim that the global temperature has increased by 0.6°C over the past century due to humans putting carbon dioxide into the air. But only 0.2°C was directly due to the CO2, while the other 0.4°C was due to increased water vapor resulting from the first 0.2°C caused by the CO2.
So here's an explanation of this subject showing what a fraud it is. The amount of water vapor in the air varies from 0 to 3% depending upon humidity. An average cannot be measured, so a good guess is used, and the usual claim is that the average is about 1.2%. Since carbon dioxide is highly uniform, its average is easily measured at 385 ppm (parts per million). Dividing the 1.2% for water vapor by the 385 ppm for CO2 indicates that there is 31 times as much water vapor in the air as CO2.
Another important fact is that water vapor will absorb three times as much radiation as CO2. This statement is based on bandwidth of absorption. It means that the number of frequencies of radiation absorbed is three times as great for water vapor. This is determined by graphing the absorption. The absorption peaks are three times as wide for water vapor as for CO2.
Therefore, one should multiply the 31 times the 3 and get about 100 times as much of a greenhouse gas for water vapor as for CO2. Climatologists and the IPCC admit that water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
So the promoters of the global warming hype (including the IPCC) decided to attribute most of the global warming to a secondary effect by water vapor. They have a bad habit of starting at the end point by picking convenient numbers and then rationalizing them. When there is no significant accountability, as in this case, the rationalizations get so absurd or nonexistent as to be blatant fraud.
If a 0.2°C increase in temperature due to CO2 increase can cause an increase in water vapor to cause an increase in temperature of three times that amount, then the same should occur everywhere. Temperatures increase about 20°C between night and day. Temperatures increase 20-30°C between the tropics and temperate zones. When does it cause three times that much increase due to water vapor? Heat will cause water to vaporize within a few minutes or not at all.
The argument for this absurdity is that the secondary increase in temperature is a one time thing. There are several frauds in such a claim. Nature cannot distinguish secondary effects from primary effects. A temperature increase is always nothing other than a temperature increase. This means the 0.4°C supposedly caused by water vapor must also be increased by a factor of three due to its secondary effects. The result would be thermal runaway.
One of the arguments is that the average water vapor is stable and unchanging, unlike the effects of CO2. That claim is absurd, because most of the water vapor is put into the air by oceans, and they vary immensely on a long term basis, as demonstrated by El Ninos and El Ninas in the Pacific Ocean. The Gulf Stream in the Atlantic also varies a lot. Oceans control the climate; and if they are not changing the temperature through water vapor, then humans are not changing it through carbon dioxide.
Ice Ages
Global warming occurs exactly the same way every 100 thousand years, as an ice age begins. At the beginning of the previous ice age, 100,000 years ago, the ocean temperature was 0.2°C warmer than now. The graph for ocean temperature is this:
The graph shows that before each ice age, ocean temperatures go sharply vertical, and then there is a rapid cool-down. Ocean temperatures at the present time are near the usual peak which occurs before the cool-down.
Scientists are supposed to have a thorough understanding of ice ages, because there is a drastic change in the biology and geology of the earth during the process. Do you hear any mention of ice ages in the discourse on global warming? There is none beyond occasional quips of ridicule. To avoid any mention of ice ages shows that a hoax is being perpetrated on the public. Honest scientists take ice ages into account, but they have been shoved aside and silenced, as propagandists took over the subject.
Motives
Propagandists synthesized a false explanation for the beginning of an ice age by claiming carbon dioxide in the air is the cause of the changes. One motive is that incompetent persons, in science and out, are constantly looking for false realities to promote as a method of concealing their incompetence. Another motive is that population controllers are constantly looking for human causes of problems as a pretext for lowering the population of the planet.
Carbon Dioxide was Exploitable
Propagandists focussed on carbon dioxide as the supposed cause of global climate changes, because there is a half truth to it. Carbon dioxide in the air picks up heat slightly better than nitrogen and oxygen. Nitrogen is 78% of the air; oxygen is 21% and carbon dioxide is 0.04%.
So a propaganda leap was made from that half truth to the claim that more carbon dioxide means more heat in the air. This leap of logic is not science. Science is measurement of evidence which is evaluated through correct logic based upon established principles. A leap in logic does not have to have any relationship to objective reality. One could say that since humans walk on two legs, and dogs on four, humans should only weigh half as much as dogs, or humans should eat half as much food as dogs. The logic can't go in any wild direction in contradiction to known facts.
The carbon dioxide propaganda contradicts the science including evidence, logic and major studies. At the starting point, there is no valid logic to the claim that more carbon dioxide in the air will produce more heat. What actually happens is this:
Radiation Absorption
As sunshine heats up the earth's surface, some of the heat is radiated outward as infrared radiation (IR). Infrared means longer wavelength than visible light. Visible light covers the range of 0.4 to 0.8 micro meters (microns or µM) of wave length. Infrared goes from 0.8 to a few hundred microns. All objects emit some types of radiation in the same way. The amount depends upon their temperature; and there is a shift to shorter wavelengths at higher temperature.
The radiation given off by all objects based on their temperature is called black body radiation. There is also some narrow bands of radiation emitted and absorbed depending upon chemical bonds; and it is called fingerprint radiation. The nitrogen and oxygen which make up most of the air only emit and absorb Black Body radiation; they do not emit or absorb fingerprint radiation, because they do not have suitable chemical bonds. Carbon dioxide does have suitable bonds for Fingerprint radiation; and it absorbs at 2.7, 4.3 and 15 microns, all within the curve for the black body radiation given off by the surface of the earth.
What it Means
Black Body radiation given off by the earth is absorbed more "strongly" by carbon dioxide than by nitrogen and oxygen, because fingerprint radiation is absorbed more strongly than black body radiation. The meaning of the word "strongly" needs to be evaluated scientifically.
Carbon dioxide will absorb the IR available to it at its strongest peak of 15 microns in about 10 meters of distance (external source), whereas nitrogen and oxygen absorb the black body radiation available to them in perhaps two kilometers. I haven't seen a number for the exact distance for nitrogen and oxygen, but it is considerably longer than the distance for fingerprint radiation. More distance is required on the shouders of the absorption peaks than in the center.
If humans double the amount of carbon dioxide they put into the air, and they add 3% of the carbon dioxide to the air, the distance over which it absorbs its fingerprint radiation reduces from 10 meters to 9.7 meters. Could this really be relevant? Some persons say it is relevant, because it increases the number of cycles required to get into outer space by 3%. Their simplistic logic is that more carbon dioxide means more time required for IR to escape into outer space.
Convection Error
They err in that logic, because it does not take into account convection, which means wind circulating the air. The difference between 10 meters and 9.7 meters rapidly disappears in the circulating air. I estimate that heat stays in the atmosphere about a month before escaping into space. I make this estimate based upon the fact that maximum sunshine (June 21) precedes maximum local temperature by almost a month.
I've seen it said that there is no significant conduction of heat into the atmosphere, because air is a good insulating material. The truth is that when conduction is combined with convection, large amounts of heat are transferred, which is why fans are used for cooling. Conduction must be included with convection to get a transfer of heat.
Rationalizers of global warming hype use a small number for the amount of heat which leaves the surface of the earth through conduction and convection, since a measurement is impossible. A process of elimination shows that most heat leaves the atmosphere through conduction and convection. Radiation leaving the earth's surface can be shown to be miniscule through night vision equipment. Some heat also leaves the surface of the oceans through evaporation. I estimate that amount to be less than 10%, but no one knows for sure, and larger amounts are sometimes used. The only remaining method is condution and convection.
Transformation Error
Some persons also err in the assumption that the IR goes through cycles of re-emission and re-absorption as a method of getting to outer space. What really happens is that the first time the carbon dioxide absorbs its fingerprint radiation, the energy is instantly transformed into heat. This transformation would take less than a trillionth of a second, which means before it can be re-emitted as radiation. The heat is then conducted to all molecules in the vicinity, which means 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen. After some time, an equivalent amount of energy is radiated as Black Body radiation by the nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and everything in the atmosphere. (See explanation on Absorption Spectra page.)
In other words, during each cycle of absorption and emission, most of the energy is transferred to the nitrogen and oxygen. After the first cycle, it is nearly irrelevant whether carbon dioxide is involved in the process of absorption and emission. Any greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide is limited to the first cycle of absorption and emission, which occurs within about 10 meters of the starting point at the earth's surface. Any changes over that short of a distance are reduced to irrelevance by convectional currents.
Another concept to be aware of is that when IR is re-emitted in the atmosphere, it is emitted in all directions including downward, upward, left, right, etc. This means there is no significant change in location of the heat resulting from re-emission. The heat moves toward the edges of the atmosphere through convection, not radiation.
Higher in the Atmosphere
A rudimentary type of logic that goes around these arguments is to look at carbon dioxide in isolation from everything else. When measuring IR absorption in a tube (maybe one meter in length), all IR is absorb at its critical peaks with a very small amount of CO2. But doubling of CO2 is said to increase absorption by 10%, because shoulders on the edges of the absorption peaks absorb more. So the logic is shifted to higher levels in the atmosphere, where shoulder absorption is more significant; and viola—the result is supposedly global warming.
Not so. First of significance is that infinitesimally small quantities are involved, as explained on the page titled Crunching the Numbers. Then, nothing about shoulder absorption is different except the distance of absorption. Outside the one meter tube (in the atmosphere), shoulder absorption might require 100 meters or 1000 meters (depending upon how far on the shoulder) before striking another CO2 molecule. A 3% increase in atmospheric CO2 (resulting from humans doubling their output of CO2) reduces those distance by 3%, which is irrelevant. And some other molecule besides CO2 would absorb the radiation in more or less distance than CO2, so it makes little difference whether it is CO2 or some other molecule. (For the sake of argument, I speak of humans doubling their 3% input as if it could occur, when in fact, oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air preventing any source from significantly increasing it.)
There is a different effect at the outer edges of the atmosphere. Some IR which might otherwise go into outer space might be caught by CO2 which might not otherwise be, when the concentration is increased. But this occurs at a height where the rest of the atmosphere is not influenced by the result. It cannot cause global warming. And the quantities are infinitesimally small to a point of irrelevance.
Reflection
There is a belief by some scientists that reflection is the reason why CO2 creates global warming, and an exact number can be calculated for the resulting global warming. They say 1.2°C increase is the result.
Beware of the glibness of such claims. Fools rush in where wise men fear to tread. There is nothing about the atmosphere or its gasses which is simple enough to cough up such numbers.
Supposedly, more CO2 reflects more radiation back toward the earth. Everything about that concept clashes with the rest of science. Supposedly, laboratory measurements show that CO2 emits as it absorbs to create the so-called reflection. That's not quite what reflection is. I can't say what the laboratory measurements show beyond the certain fact that if you can't see it for yourself, you will be lied to about it—within science and without. There are a few scientists who make sure they properly represent a subject, but they don't make such rash claims.
But even if such reflection were occurring, the contradictions are beyond belief. Whatever is being reflected is not being absorbed and converted into heat. So such "reflection" would be diminishing the ability of CO2 to heat the atmosphere.
Then there is no such thing as "reflecting radiation back to the earth." The radiation only interacts with the earth within the first 10 meters. Above that, the radiation is doing everything it does in a three dimensional, non-directional manner. It does everything it does in all directions equally.
It appears that the persons who are aligned upon the reflection concept have no clear understanding of the details and therefore make a lot of stupid assumptions. Such persons will invariably allow themselves to be lied to and multiply the lies as they pass them on. In other words, the supposed laboratory measurements could just about have concerned jelly fish and resulted in the same conclusions.
Effective Zones
Greenhouse gasses can only add heat to the troposphere in narrow zones near the surface of the earth and near the outer edge of the troposphere, as shown below.
Near the surface, all radiation gets absorbed and used up. In the center of the atmosphere, emissions are in all directions equally, and emissions and absorption are equal, so no heat increase occurs. At the upper edge of the troposphere, radiation escapes into the stratosphere, and some of the escape can be blocked by greenhouse gasses.
The lines shown are not in proportion. The bottom line is less that 1 part per thousand of the troposphere, and the top line is less that 1% of the troposphere.
Then there are additional reasons why no significant heating occurs in these zones as explained elsewhere. For example, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would reduce the lower line from 10 meters to 5 meters, which is not an increase in heat.
No Valid Mechanism
In other words, there is not a scientifically valid mechanism for claiming carbon dioxide is creating global warming. All of the claims about seeing it and measuring it cannot be anything but propaganda, because there is no such mechanism. In fact, some major scientific studies indicate that humans and carbon dioxide are not the causes of the climate changes which are observed.
Two Studies Show Ice Accumulating
For example, two separate studies show ice increasing over land while decreasing over the ocean. This was shown at Antarctica and Greenland. The reason is because increased precipitation is occurring due to oceans heating up. The precipitation is accumulating as snow and ice on land faster than it is melting. But ice over the oceans is rapidly melting due to increased ocean temperature. If the heat originates with carbon dioxide in the air, how can it heat the oceans but not melt the increased snowfall over land? Something else is heating the oceans.
Propagandists don't tell the public that ice is increasing over land. Instead, they look to showpiece glaciers and claim ice is melting over land. Small glaciers are melting rapidly for many reasons unrelated to carbon dioxide. They always do melt between ice ages, and soot on the surface increases melting. There are also micro climates which are increasing in temperature due to warmer oceans, and these are heating Europe and Alaska, where the showpiece glaciers are melting. Tundra is also melting due to these micro climate changes. Ice melting on nearby oceans is causing air temperatures to increase in northern areas. This effect is not due to carbon dioxide but oceans heating for some other reason. Oceans
Oceans Regulate
Humans cannot influence the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, because oceans regulate the amount to the most minute degree. Propagandists sometimes acknowledge this and sometimes contradict it. They acknowledge that oceans are absorbing increasing amounts of carbon dioxide, when they are pretending that the oceans are being harmed by the result. They contradict it in claiming humans determine the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.
It is a fact of chemistry that water absorbs carbon dioxide and establishes an equilibrium with the amount in the air. Equilibrium means absorption and release is continuous, while the concentration on either side is defined by the chemistry. Warmer water releases more carbon dioxide, and so does saltier water. If the oceans were not high in salt, there would not be enough carbon dioxide in the air to sustain plant growth.
As oceans heat up, they release more carbon dioxide into the air, which is why carbon dioxide levels in the air track with ocean temperatures. The reason why there has been an increase in carbon dioxide in the air over the past 150 years is because the oceans have been heating up, not because humans are producing more.
This equilibrium is observable when atmospheric carbon dioxide is measured. These measurements are made on a mountain in Hawaii, where the air is not disturbed by nearby human activity. The measurements show that when the Pacific Ocean heats up due to an El Nino, the carbon dioxide in the air increases; and when the El Nino disappears, the CO2 level in the air normalizes. This shows that oceans control the amount of carbon dioxide in the air rapidly and to the most minute degree.
A bar graph showing the CO2 increase with El Ninos is on this page.
Carbon dioxide is not self-regulating based on supply and demand, because the upper limit of toxicity is very high, and the lower limit of availability is almost nonexistent due to the large amount in the oceans. A stable level only exists because the oceans regulate through solubility equilibrium.
Reversing Cause and Effect
When CO2 measurements could be made in ice core samples, it was found that over the past 150 thousand years (more than one ice age cycle) the CO2 levels in the air tracked with temperatures. This finding was said to be critical in convincing many scientists of the influence of CO2 on climate and ice ages. But that rationale turns on a hinge point of viewing CO2 as cause rather than effect. If CO2 is effect of temperatures, the result is no more than a curiosity in line with expected chemistry. All basic principles indicated that CO2 should increase with temperatures—as effect, not cause—because warmer oceans release more CO2. To pretend that CO2 causes the temperature increases just because of a correlation is not valid, because it is the reverse of what is expected from established principles. External Reference
Unprecedented Increase in CO2
It was supposedly found that CO2 levels in the air never get as high during ice age cycles as they are now. Variations during ice age cycles were measured at 180 to 280 ppm, while now they are 384 ppm. Supposedly, only human activity could have caused such an increase.
There is a basic flaw in logic in saying the human input of 3% can result in a cumulative total of 30%, while the remaining input of 97% does not increase the cumulative total.
Since humans only add 3% of the CO2 to the atmosphere, while the other 97% is mostly from decay, the implication is that nature has a fill level for CO2 in the air, and everything humans add is overflow. There is no such fill level for CO2 in the air. Nature does not take out what it puts in. The take-out is mostly from photosynthesis, and the input is mostly decay. There is no relationship between photosynthesis and decay, which means there is no fill level for CO2 in the air, and natural variations are much greater than human additions.
In the past, CO2 levels were much higher than at present. During the dinosaur years, there was 5 times as much CO2 in the air; and during the Cambrian era, there was 20 times as much. (external graph)
Rationalizers mention the fact that more CO2 in the air promotes better growth, which they refer to as negative forcing. But the relationships are too limited to be relevant. Most photosynthesis in nature is limited by light, nutrients and water, not availability of CO2.
Ice Core Measurements
The problem in saying humans caused a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 is that the earlier measurements were made in ice core samples, while present measurements are made in the air. The different methods of measurement are not comparable, because the ice core measurements are extremely dubious. The method was to crush the ice sample in a vacuum and "rapidly" measure the contents. The measurement is a concentration relative to the nitrogen and oxygen. See 30% Fraud and also Fake Ice Core Measurements
Everything about such a procedure sends up red flags. How perfect can the vacuum be without destroying the ice sample? A vacuum cannot be created rapidly; so how could rapid crushing be relevant? A vacuum would explode the gasses in the ice causing them to mix with the gasses being evacuated. Then there's a problem with the sample. How stable can the components be over time? There would be a high tendency for CO2 to react or migrate, which would reduce the peaks.
Nothing about such a procedure points to an absolute value which can be compared to other methods of measurement. All indications are that measurements in ice are much lower than real values. There were direct measurements of CO2 in the air back then, and they show much higher values than the ice core measurements, as indicated on this link:
External Criticism of Ice Core Procedure-pdf
Jaworowski: critic of ice core measurements
Latest Science Agrees - early CO2 measurements
Since oceans regulate CO2 in the air to the most minute degree, any real increase is due to warmer oceans releasing more. There is no justification in reading human activity into an increase. External Reference
Computer Models
The propagandists have numbers for every purpose, but they get them from computer models which they juggle until the numbers show what they want them to show. There is no validity to computer models which are not based on correct principles at the starting point.
The computer models show 0.6°C increase in recent times, and an expected increase of 1-6°C in the future, while an analysis of basic principles show that humans cannot increase the absorption effects of CO2 by more than 0.0002°C, as explained on the web page titled Crunching the Numbers.
Predicting climate with computer models is absurd to a point of fraud. It's like putting a two horsepower motor on a roller skate and claiming it will win the Indianapolis 500. There are too many complexities which are not taken into account.
The most important complexity not taken into account is oceans; and they determine about 98% of the climate. Oceans cannot be modeled, because they are way too complex and erratic; and almost no information is available. James Hansen, the chief modeler, pretends that the atmosphere changes the oceans rather than the oceans changing the atmosphere. It's absurd, because the oceans have 1,000 times as much heat capacity as the atmosphere.
Oceans absorb a large amount of radiant energy from the sun and hold it due to the depths of absorption and circulation. Then they move it around and release it in unpredictable ways.
Only observation of nature provides evidence of the total, integrated effects of climate and the oceans influence over climate. I describe some of the evidence on the page titled The Next Ice Age May have been Triggered in 2008.
How it Happened
Corrupters steamrolled over the science of this subject from the beginning. For example, scientists considered the effect of oceans regulating the amount of CO2 in the air and drew the conclusion that oceans would neutralize any effect by humans. But a rationalizer noticed that ocean water stays in layers and said, therefore there isn't enough mixing to absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Then the propagandists claimed that the sham explanation was the final proof.
The real evidence shows that there is nearly twenty times as much CO2 moving into and out of the oceans as humans produce. It shows that there is 200 times as much carbon in the surface oceans as humans produce in a year. It shows that oceans release and absorb a measurable amount of CO2 due to an El Nino. It shows that the pH at the surface of the oceans and deeper is alkaline (pH 8.1) which absorbs CO2. If the surface were saturated, the pH would have to be acidic. These points of evidence show exactly what is happening, while propagandists defy and ignore such evidence in promoting sham explanations which strain out gnats and swallow camels.
The most noticeable feature of the global warming propaganda is the standard. It's totally devoid of explanations of evidence and logic. In place of rational evaluation is a railroad job—like 99% of the scientists agree; or there could be no other cause for all of this ice melting than human activity; or this hasn't occurred in the past xxx years.
At the quasi scientific level is infinite mathematical detail based on a false foundation. It doesn't matter which way all of those molecules are moving, when humans have no ability to influence them. It's like thousands of studies and billions of dollars spent to determine how the green Martians planted the trees. Every fact about trees could be correct, but it doesn't mean the green Martians planted them. Al Gore is like a novice tree expert explaining how the Green Martians planted the trees.
The Standards of Science
Here's an example of how corrupt science is. About a century ago, someone observed a leaf mold above morel mushroom compost and claimed it was a conidial stage of growth for the morel. To this day, morel scientists are claiming it to be a growth stage of the morel, because they never question anyone else's science in a significant way.
The morel mushroom is as different from a leaf mold as plants are from animals. Leaf molds had their characteristic stabilized about 300 million years ago, while the morel just started evolving from a yeast (a single celled organism) about 50 thousand years ago and is still rapidly changing. A leaf mold decays solid leaves, while the morel requires soluble nutrients and has no extracellular enzymes for decay. Leaf molds grow exposed to the atmosphere, while morel mycelium dies due to dehydration when exposed to the atmosphere. A leaf mold produces microscopic spore structures called conidia, while the morel produces a large spore structure called an ascocarp (the mushroom). A leaf mold produces external spores on a stalk, while the morel produces enclosed spores like a yeast. A leaf mold has microstructures including rosettes and crosiers (which haven't evolved since hundreds of millions of years ago), while morel mycelium has no micro-complexity.
None of this means anything to morel mushroom scientists, because they aren't studying science, they are mongering power. The same is true in every area of science. Power mongers shove real scientists aside to promote their agenda. It is out of this well that the claim is created that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming.
Addendum – Sun's Energy
It's important to realize that radiation from the sun does not greatly heat the atmosphere, because the sun must give off high frequency radiation in the area of visible light, which goes through the atmosphere. Something as hot as the sun cannot give off low frequency radiation, called infrared. This means that the sun's radiation heats the surface of the earth, and then the heat moves from the earth's surface into the atmosphere through conduction, convection, evaporation and infrared radiation. The infrared radiation can be absorbed by so-called greenhouse gasses.
Global Warming Main Page
Crunching the Numbers
Examples of Fraud
A Few Simple Words
External Link:
Scientists Misrepresented