Comments on: More Heat on Mann at Home http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/12/03/more-heat-on-mann-at-home/ Climate Change News & Analysis Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:44:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Gary Novakhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2009/12/03/more-heat-on-mann-at-home/comment-page-1/#comment-30309 Gary Novak Sat, 05 Dec 2009 08:23:33 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=5222#comment-30309 "The pursuit of absolute science" is a joke. The foundation of the claimed established science is this fudge factor: Heat Increase = 5.35 ln C/Cx This is a logarithmic curve for the claimed amount of heat produced by increase in CO2. Guess what, an increase in CO2 from 10 to 20 ppm is the same spot on the curve as an increase from 100 to 200 ppm. It's 3.7 watts per square meter of heat increase in both cases. This is because the fudge factor is so rudimentary that it cannot account for absolute values. It is designed for ratios only. This bit of fakery was supposedly derived from Beer's-Lambert laws and Planck's equations, which means they are acts of God. But those equations don't work for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because they cease to apply upon saturation. CO2 saturates at the center of its main absorption peak in about ten meters. So a substitute curve was contrived as a fudge factor. I have more details on this on my web site on a page titled Fake Equations, which is here: <a href="http://nov55.com/equations.html" rel="nofollow">http://nov55.com/equations.html</a> "The pursuit of absolute science" is a joke. The foundation of the claimed established science is this fudge factor: Heat Increase = 5.35 ln C/Cx

This is a logarithmic curve for the claimed amount of heat produced by increase in CO2. Guess what, an increase in CO2 from 10 to 20 ppm is the same spot on the curve as an increase from 100 to 200 ppm. It's 3.7 watts per square meter of heat increase in both cases.

This is because the fudge factor is so rudimentary that it cannot account for absolute values. It is designed for ratios only.

This bit of fakery was supposedly derived from Beer's-Lambert laws and Planck's equations, which means they are acts of God. But those equations don't work for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because they cease to apply upon saturation. CO2 saturates at the center of its main absorption peak in about ten meters. So a substitute curve was contrived as a fudge factor.

I have more details on this on my web site on a page titled Fake Equations, which is here:

http://nov55.com/equations.html

]]>