Five Testable Hypotheses of Carbon Warming - Part 3

Hypothesis #4

Carbon dioxide is considered to be well-mixed in the atmosphere, which is somewhat ironic.  Nevertheless, the reference measurement in Hawaii is considered good for the whole world.

Given a uniform thermal blanket, the hypothesis is that global warming should be uniform.  There is no mechanism for hot and cold zones.

This hypothesis fails with the satellite trends.

This is the trend map since 1979, expressed as a rise of C deg per decade.  All the trend is in the northern hemisphere.  The trend at the South Pole is zero.  This hypothesis is dead.

Hypothesis #5

blah, can't think of one.

Any suggestions appreciated.

End.

Five Testable Hypotheses of Carbon Warming - Part 2

Hypothesis #2

Carbon dioxide acts as an opaque thermal blanket on the Earth.  Even nasa now says that satellite global temperatures are accurate.  The satellites measure the same infrared band that is said to be blocked.  Therefore, a test will be to see if the calibration curve has drifted in accordance with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The satellite measurements are now the 'gold standard' of the thermal apocalypse.  Our 'boiling alive' has to show in these measurements.  The calibration curve has to change with increasing carbon.  Yet, there is no drift in the calibration that I have heard of.  If there was a drift, you'd be sure to hear of it.  The silence is deafening. 


Hypothesis #3

With a constant heat input to the Earth, the act of piling on more insulation in the form of carbon dioxide must result in a monotonic increase in temperature.  There can be no 'flat zones' or, heaven forbid, a decrease in global temperatures.

Taking out the El Ninos, we're talking flat as a board, and recently we've been going down.  The 0.75 C increase since 1980 is nowhere near the famous 'models' that are showing a rate 5 times this.


--to be continued.

Five Testable Hypotheses of Carbon Warming - Part 1

Main Hypothesis:  Carbon Dioxide acts as a thermal blanket on the Earth, causing significant warming to the point of our destruction.

This hypothesis is untestable, and has been supported only by the rising temperatures.  The 'story' is that this happens on other planets as a 'greenhouse gas'.  Early work in the laboratory showed that carbon absorbs and emits a notch of the infrared spectrum and this has been worked up with a mechanism that has not been tested in the field.

nasa's big crime is not coming up with a silly story, but actively ignoring simple tests.

Hypothesis One:  Carbon Dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas.  In other words, more carbon interferes with the normal release of heat energy to outer space.

This has been tested with weather balloons.  There is no evidence of a greenhouse gas working, and the 'lapse rate' or decrease of temperature with height is totally determined by convection.

However, it appears that this bit of evidence is easily ignored.  Why?  Because it is not direct.  The direct way is to actually measure the amount of interference.  This can be easily done with lasers on a balloon.  Nasa actually mounted lasers on a balloon, but aimed them all up, to study upper convection.

The actual concentration of carbon dioxide varies with time over the whole world.  The interference can be directly measured, and a value assigned to the 'Carbon Coefficient'.

-to be continued (I don't think I have 5 yet)  :)