Saturation is the Demise of Global Warming Fakery
Real scientists determined a century ago, and ever since, that saturation precludes global warming by carbon dioxide. Saturation means all radiation available gets used up in a short distance (10 meters), so more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. Fakes pretend to get around saturation but can never explain how.
Rationalizers look for a situation represented by the image on the left, where some radiation would go through. At first, they said molecules on the shoulders of the absorption peaks are thin and do what is shown in the image on the left. But that claim would not stand up to criticism; so they switched to the upper atmosphere, where molecules are thinner. The molecules don't get thin enough until they are far beyond the top of the normal atmosphere (troposphere).
The insurmountable problem of rationalizers is that when the molecules get thin enough to allow radiation through, they spread the heat so thin that no significant temperature increase can occur. The molecules would have to be one thousandth as dense as at the surface. But that means one thousandths as much temperature change for each unit of heat.
Heinz Hug showed that only one part per thousand on the edge of the shoulders are relevant to an increase, and this would create a thousand to one ratio for center effect compared to shoulder effect.
Notice that when only 0.1% of the CO2 molecules are considered on the shoulders of the peaks, saturation occurs in 10 kilometers, which is within the normal atmosphere, called troposphere. They saturate. This miniscule quantity of molecules is doing nothing significant anywhere, any time. Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does nothing but shorten the distance of saturation to 5 kilometers for these molecules. Shortening the distance is not increasing the trivial heat. In other words, it's not possible to achieve nonsaturation in any significant way.
Therefore, scientists eliminated saturation through mathematics without a scientific logic. The basic method of eliminating saturation was to use radiative transfer equations to calculate the amount of radiation that goes through the atmosphere. Saturation is removed in the calculationsno explanation of where it went.
The methodology of radiative transfer equations is to slice the atmosphere into numerous small pieces called parcels. The amount of radiation emitted from each parcel is calculate, and the amount of that radiation absorbed into the next parcel up is calculated. This is repeated until the entire atmosphere is covered. The largest computers are used to do this. And what do they have afterwards? Some radiation escaping at the top of the atmosphere, where saturation allows none. Direct measurements easily show the saturation, so obfuscation was needed to erase the saturation.
The math for the radiative transfer equations requires a concept of how much radiation is going from each parcel and how much goes into the next parcel. Accounting for saturation must occur to determine these numbers. Therefore, the erasure of saturation occurs in deciding how much radiation goes where.
The product of the radiative transfer equations was presented as the fudge factor.
In 2001, the IPCC (AR3) stated that saturation exists in these terms:
With this statement there was no explanation of how the shoulder molecules are evaluated for the magical heating, and there was apparently no further mention of shoulder molecules or saturation in subsequent publications of the IPCC reports.
Saturation was Reduced to a Trivial Amount
With the fudge factor, a small amount of saturation creates the bend in the curve. But the saturation is actually about 10,000 times greater than the fudge factor curve indicates. Measurements, such as that of Heinz Hug, show that the center of the main absorption peak saturates in 10 meters. To get saturation to occur at a height of 10 km would require one thousandth as much saturation. But 10 km is still in the normal atmosphere (troposphere). To get non-saturation of any significance, as indicated by the fudge factor, at least ten times as much distance is required, or one tenth as much saturation, which would be 10,000 times as much as indicated by the fudge factor.
To determine the effects of saturation, the question is how far should radiation travel before being totally absorbed. Nowhere in prevailing climatology is there any indication of distance being considered. Implicitly, the radiative transfer equations calculated a series of parcels from the bottom to the top of the troposphere. There is no logic for doing that, since an unfathomable mechanism is usually said to occur at 9 km up, and it is independent of the distance to the earth's surface. But radiation traveling from the surface to the fake mechanism requires at least 9 km to get there. So the distances implied by the radiative transfer equations need to be quite large.
The effect of radiative transfer equations is to show that less radiation leaves the atmosphere than enters from the sun, until equilibrium is restored at a warmer temperature for the atmosphere. In doing so, saturation is reduced to trivia, and the mechanism is reduced to simple absorption of radiation throughout the atmosphere, based on the premise that the radiation all starts at ground level and moves upward. Most energy gets into the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation. Therefore, there is no means of determining how far radiation must travel to get out of the atmosphere, which must be known to calculate how much fails to be emitted at the top of the atmosphere.
Why not measure the result in a tube in the laboratory instead of calculate it? The measurement says all radiation is absorbed in 10 meters; the calculation says it is still emitted at 20 km. There can't be a difference. Which is more reliable?
The calculation is so infinitely complex that it can't be done. Yet climatologist claim that the resulting fudge factor is an unquestionable principle of physics.
What would need to be known to make the calculation is not only all complexities in the atmosphere but the temperature of each parcel, overlapping and interacting radiation waves, which are too numerous and complex to be evaluated, and the amount of radiation being absorbed and emitted by the oceans, which cannot be determined, not the least reason being that the oceans are so heterogeneous with mountains and rivers of temperature variation that surface temperatures cannot be predicted. El Ninos are unpredictable due to the infinite unknowns.
This complexity is only necessary because of the claim that the radiation goes through the entire atmosphere when making calculations. The laboratory measurement does not require such complexity, because in 10 meters, there is no significant, atmospheric complexity.
Afterwards, converting radiation into temperature is impossible for the same reasons. In addition to the complexities, the temperature will depend upon the amount of time between radiation absorption and re-emission, which is too complex and unknown.
A described procedure for quantitating the primary effect is to calculate the amount of radiation obstructed at the top of the atmosphere and then using the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to convert radiation into temperature. There are three major problems with this: One, the radiation cannot be calculated; two, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is off by a factor of about twenty; and three, what happens at the top of the atmosphere has no relationship to what happens at the bottom, where humans are concerned with near surface temperatures.
The amount of radiation obstructed at the top of the atmosphere cannot be calculated. Satellites can crudely measure it, but why do a calculation when it can only be measured? The calculation is nothing but a muddling process for concealing the absurdity of the method.
The reason why such radiation cannot be calculated is because it comes out of a well that is way to random and complex. It is the well of heat and radiation interacting throughout the atmosphere, while radiation exits in complex and variable ways while establishing equilibrium with the amount of radiation entering from the sun.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant says how much radiation is emitted from matter at any temperature. It is not a real representation of anything that actually happens in nature, because emitted radiation depends upon chemistry, which is highly variable. The variations are adjusted for as "emissivity" or its inverse, "absorptivity."
But worse, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant shows about 20 times too much radiation at normal temperatures. If it is reduced by a factor of 20, the excess absorption of radiation claimed to result from CO2 changes from 3.7 w/m² to 0.19 w/m², which is one twentieth as much radiation. If the radiation is held at 3.7 w/m², the temperature change of the primary effect goes from 1°C to 17.8°C.
It shows the problem of starting at the desired end point and going backwards to rationalize it. When the input quantities are corrected, the end result gets ridiculous.
Stefan-Boltzmann constant (SBC): Forcing (F) (w/m²) = 5.6705 x 10-8 x K4
At 255°K: F = 5.6705 x 10-8 x (2554) = 239.76 w/m²
Dividing radiation by 20: 239.76 w/m² ÷ 20 = 11.988 w/m²
Changed SBC: x = F/K4 = 11.988 ÷ (255)4 = 2.8352 x 10-9
Whereby: F = 2.8352 x 10-9 x K4
Adding 3.7 w/m² to 11.988 w/m² = 15.688 w/m²
K4 = F/x = 15.688 w/m² ÷ 2.8352 x 10-9 = y, where y-4 = 272.74°K
Changed temperature = 272.74°K - 255°K = 17.8°C
Changed primary effect: 5.35ln2 = 3.7 w/m² x 4.8 = 17.8°C upon doubling CO2.
Claimed primary effect: 5.35ln2 = 3.7 w/m² x 0.27 = 1°C upon doubling CO2.
Why start at 255°K? Climatologists have a quirky and erroneous reason for doing so. Without an atmosphere, the earth's temperature average would be 255°K, when applying the SBC, because the sun sends down 235 w/m² of energy, which is supposedly how much radiation matter gives off at 255°K. Presumably, the analysis should start where there are no greenhouse gases.
The trouble is, the analysis calculates how much heat is added to the atmosphere at present time, which is said to average 288°K. Such contradictions don't get resolved in the contrivances. If anything real were studied, each point would be non-contradictory. But applying real science to these questions is totally impossible. So contriving each step of the rationalization leaves endless contradictions which cannot be resolved.
Climatologists went to a lot of effort to erase the subject of saturation from their analysis. Saturation was mentioned in the third report of IPCC (IPCC (AR3)) with no explanation and then dropped like a hot potato. Instead of directly measuring or explaining saturation, fake calculations supposedly show how much radiation gets to the top of the atmosphere. Radiative transfer equations serve that purpose. The problem is, there is no relevance to anything getting to the top of the atmosphere. Calculations do not have a trace of logic for making such a determination.
Hundreds of watts per square meter of radiation flow out of the atmosphere and into space constantly. Very little gets to the top of the atmosphere as indicated by the extremely cold temperature up there. Not much radiation is emitted at such cold temperatures. The radiative transfer equations cannot determine how much radiation is flowing out of the atmosphere from all heights and into space. The implication of the radiative transfer equations is that energy flows upward, and the amount can be calculated. When almost no radiation flows to the top of the atmosphere, the calculations are a total fraud.