Propaganda is all the public gets, and a lot of erroneous assumptions result. "Climate change" is supposed to mean the climate is doing something it otherwise would not do. "Heat trapping gasses" is supposed to mean greenhouse gasses prevent heat from leaving the atmosphere. Why would scientists use those terms if they didn't mean what they say? Because those terms are propaganda statements used by frauds. So here's an attempt to cut through those frauds with simple explanations:

Greenhouse gasses make the upper atmosphere a little less cold but do little to make the lower atmosphere warmer. And most of what greenhouse gasses do was done by the first 1-10% of the greenhouse gasses, which nature added to the atmosphere eons ago with no human involvement. The graph below shows the effect with more explanations.

The sun's energy cannot be trapped by greenhouse gasses, because it is too high of a frequency, being in the visible range, while greenhouse gasses absorb low frequency radiation, which is invisible, called infrared radiation. (Small exceptions have no bearing on the subject and are not argued.)

At about the level of Al Gore's understanding, the assumption is that all heat leaves the earth through radiation, and nothing but greenhouse gasses prevents the heat from disappearing into space. Wrong.

Almost no heat leaves the surface of the earth through radiation. It leaves through conduction, convection and evaporation. Normal temperature matter gives off almost no radiation. Frauds lie about it and claim that 41% of the heat leaving the surface of the earth is radiation, but that is preposterous, as night vision shows. Night vision equipment picks up almost no radiation from normal temperature matter. But even if the 41% is assumed to be true, it doesn't come close to salvaging the global warming fraud. (This subject is discussed on the page titled Stephan-Boltzmann Constant.)

An erroneous assumption at the starting point that needs to be clarified is that heat does not go zipping into space being trapped only by greenhouse gasses. Instead, heat sits in the atmosphere for several months due to the nitrogen and oxygen (99% of the atmosphere), and it would do so even if there were no such thing as greenhouse gasses. The public is not grasping this point.

So this point needs to be understood. The point is this: Regardless of how heat gets into the atmosphere, whether through radiation or conduction and evaporation, it would sit in the atmosphere for several months simply due to the fact that heat tends to stay where it is located and cannot easily escape. If you take a hot pan off the stove, it stays hot for awhile, because heat is slow at escaping. The atmosphere also stays hot for awhile due to heat being slow at escaping. It does not take greenhouse gasses to hold heat in the atmosphere anymore than it takes greenhouse gasses to keep a pan hot when it is removed from a stove. Heat cannot escape from either one very rapidly.

Now reconceptualize this point. Heat stays in the atmosphere simply because heat does not escape from anything very rapidly, not because greenhouse gasses hold it in. Propagandists are trying to falsify this concept through implication without correct knowledge by talking about "heat trapping gasses" leading people to assume, and some scientists to claim, that only greenhouse gasses prevent heat from escaping into space.

Implicit in the fraud of nothing but greenhouse gasses holding heat in the atmosphere is the assumption that all heat on the planet would instantly zip into space if it were not "trapped" by greenhouse gasses. Correcting this fraud requires the understanding that heat enters the atmosphere through several means including conduction, convection and evaporation.

Then secondly, the radiation that gets trapped by greenhouse gasses gets trapped by the first small amount of greenhouse gasses (1-10%), which nature put there millions of years ago, and has nothing to do with humans. In other words, the radiation gets used up by a small amount of CO2, so more CO2 does nothing more. Propagandists falsify this point by causing people to assume that every molecule of CO2 (Why not water vapor?) means more heat being trapped.

The frauds cannot lie about this to other scientists, so they create a fake explanation based on technical trivia high in the atmosphere, as I explain on pages titled "Fake Mechanism" and "The Disputed Area." The fakes use minute effects as a justification for logic and then balloon the significance where there is none. The page titled Crunching the Numbers shows how absurdly minute the claimed effects are.

As these points get more complex (and less visible to the public) the fakery increases. But the absurdity is harder to correct, because there is less accountability. In other words, real scientists must watch frauds make a mockery of science, while their hands are tied by lack of accountability and a bureaucracy and media which overwhelms them by enforcing the fraud.

At this point in the explanation, there are oceans of secondary points which need to be corrected. Here is one of the most important points for people to realize. After getting into the scientific complexities at a degree of depth, all theory and measurability breaks down. There isn't a chance of scientist creating correct theories in the complexities, and they don't even try to beyond lying to the public. Instead, the frauds turn in other directions. First, they resort to fake history. Supposedly, the record shows an increase in temperature over the past 150 years.

Even if that claim were true it would not have the slightest meaning, because there is no such thing as a stable temperature in climate history. It always changes. It is always increasing or decreasing. Frauds have been convincing the public that nature created a stable and delicate balance in climate, and now humans upset it. Nothing could be a bigger fraud about climate. Massive changes occur in temperature over short term and long term history of climate. A "little ice age" occurred over recent centuries, and coming out of it is one of the reasons for recent temperature increases.

Notice how temperature constantly changes on this graph:

Another important thing for people to realize is that global warming propaganda was contrived through measurements which are a blatant fraud and defy all standards required for scientific data. The frauds literally tinkered with the information until they got the results they wanted showing a recent up-curve. For recent temperature increases, thermometer measurements at weather stations were used, and supposedly they showed a 0.6°C temperature increase.

Weather stations are a mess due to being located in changing environments, which usually increase in temperature due to human development, and problems related to deterioration and poor area coverage including no measurements over oceans, which make up 70% of the earth's surface. So the frauds went through the temperature measurements, picking, choosing and adjusting data. That would not be science, and it would not be reliable, even if it were done in an unbiased way through a machine. But every iota of it was adjusted and tailored to show an increase. Large amounts of satellite data showed much less increase, while over and over, the frauds adjusted the satellite data to fit their contrived results. Each time an adjustment was made, it was always made in the same direction to enhance the contrived result of a 0.6°C temperature increase. Never was there a random result in the other direction. After decades of evaluating large amounts of data from diverse sources, critics show over and over that there was very little temperature increase, and it was mostly ocean temperature which increased with slight effects upon nearby land and ice floating over ocean water. (Ice which sits on ocean water cannot cause ocean levels to rise when it melts. Propagandists don't want the public to know that, as they harp and harp about melting ice, which is almost always sitting on ocean water including all ice over the Arctic Ocean.)

In other words, after all of the talk and theorizing about greenhouse gasses, not an iota of that subject is applied to the result. The result is a product of fake thermometer measurements with zero theory involved. Of course, there is then the prediction of future gloom, but it is of similar nature—tailoring and tweaking fake data through computer models, until it shows the desired result.

The data and its manipulation for showing the claimed 0.6°C temperature increase is not available to other scientists. There is nothing scientific about concealed information which cannot be verified. It's not the unquestionable, peer reviewed science which the fakes claim to be standing on.
 

As a result, radiation cools the entire atmosphere uniformly. It is primarily long wave, infrared radiation, which goes around greenhouse gasses, which cools the atmosphere by escaping into space.

The graph below shows temperature decreasing with height in the atmosphere. If there were more radiation escaping into space, the cooling would increase, as indicated by the lower line.

Notice that the cooling effect is greatest at maximum height and very slight near the surface of the earth. This shows that variations in cooling due to variations in radiation have little effect near the surface of the earth.

So even if the temperature of the planet were heating due to increased greenhouse gasses, the result would be almost undetectable near the surface of the earth. How then do climatologists get an increased temperature with their thermometer measurements? They wouldn't, if they were making real measurements. They faked the numbers.

This graph shows that if greenhouse gasses really were heating the atmosphere, there would be very little result near the surface of the earth. Satellite measurements are more reliable, and they show slight variations near the surface of the earth, but this would be due to oceans heating, not greenhouse gasses.

Another important point to be aware of is the role of water vapor. Water vapor is about a hundred times more of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. If greenhouse gasses were really relevant, the large variations in water vapor would be frying and freezing everything, certainly swamping the effects of CO2.

There is a major fraud in the way water vapor is handled. First, the frauds claim that water vapor does not overwhelm the effects of CO2, because water vapor is stable, while CO2 is increasing. The exact opposite occurs. There are massive variations in humidity, which is why humidity is a major part of weather reports. Humidity varies from near zero in dry areas to near saturation in humid areas, while it moves around in varied and unpredictable ways.

Then the frauds have the audacity of claiming that a 0.2°C temperature increase caused by CO2 was multiplied to 0.6°C by water vapor. The slight primary effect by CO2 supposedly increased the holding capacity of the atmosphere for water vapor resulting in more water vapor in the air.

Nature produces massive changes in temperature and holding capacity in the air. Only where there is saturated humidity is holding capacity the determining factor. Seldom, is humidity saturated. There is a large amount of yearly and decadal variation, in addition to daily and monthly variation, in regional and global temperatures and humidity. To claim that a miniscule effect is the only change occurring, and it is dooming mankind, couldn't be a more blatant fraud.

If water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2, which the frauds admit when they multiply the CO2 effect by a factor of 3 due to water vapor, why would anyone want to exchange CO2 for water vapor in tailpipes and smoke stacks? Why is not water vapor a pollutant endangering the health of mankind and in need of being controlled by the EPA, when it is more of a greenhouse gas and more variable than CO2? No explanation. That's how much objective reality there is in the global warming fraud. You think that's a joke? It's even more of a joke to claim CO2 is dooming mankind.

Perhaps the most obvious fraud of the whole subject is to be attributing the entire climate to the atmosphere, while oceans determine about 98% of climate variation, and in a highly unpredictable way. Oceans are in rivers of motion and mountains of layers of hot and cold; and they vary so much that scientists don't have a clue as to what oceans are doing.

Nature shows that oceans are warming, and as they do so they increase humidity and precipitation everywhere. Where do you get droughts out of that? What nature shows is described on the page titled The Next Ice Age May have been Triggered in 2008.

Frauds switched to using the term "climate change" attempting to indicated that opposites can result from increased carbon dioxide. There is no mechanism for producing opposites. Carbon dioxide cannot move heat from one place to another. It is almost uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

The only explanation given at the scientific level for opposite effects (droughts and floods; heating and cooling) is that the greenhouse effect is supposed to be more noticeable over the equator than over the poles thus causing a difference. Such an effect was never found. Even if it occurred, it would be so miniscule and so diffuse due to convection spreading the heat around that no differences would be noticed in weather or climate. For scientists to assume they could actually measure or observe a "greenhouse" effect over the equator without it being totally dissipated through convection is incompetence to an extreme.

And then, measured effects show more change near the poles than near the equator. The measured effects are the opposite of predicted effects. The reason is because oceans are heating, not the atmosphere, and they carry heat into cold places such as polar regions.
 
Sahara Desert turning green

The Sahara Desert is turning green due to increased precipitation as described by National Geographic. Nothing but oceans warming can cause increased precipitation on a large scale. If the atmosphere were heating more than the oceans, less precipitation would occur. Similarly, the center of Antarctica is accumulating more ice due to the increase in precipitation. (described on Oceans) The increase in precipitation shows that oceans are heating, not the atmosphere.

This shows that greenhouse gasses are not heating the atmosphere, because warming reduces precipitation. Fakes claim the opposite saying that since warm air holds more moisture, it will have more moisture in it, which increases precipitation. They are wrong in the same way they are wrong about water vapor amplifying global warming.

Their argument is based on the claim that increased holding capacity for water vapor in the air is the same as increased water vapor in the air. Holding capacity does not determine the amount of water vapor in the air, because seldom is the air saturated. This means the air almost always has unused holding capacity, and something else determines the amount of water vapor in the air.

The number one factor determining the amount of water vapor in the air is ocean temperature. This means the increased precipitation is caused by increased ocean temperature, not greenhouse gasses. The fakes totally ignore the influence of oceans on climate, while measurements are showing more and more evidence of oceans determining the effects of climate.

Addendum: An important undercurrent which is not usually recognized is that there are two types of science that evolved—one correct and one fraudulent. The global warming issue shows how the fraudulent science works.

The fraudulent concept of science evolved in physics due to the extremely abstract and mathematical nature of the subject. Physicists pull mathematics out of thin air and adapt it to purposes related to technology. It's usefulness causes them to assume it is scientific fact. But the math is always a shortcut which can never properly represent the complexities of nature. (See Stephan-Boltzmann Constant.)

That type of science was applied to the subject of global warming by James Hansen, a physicist at NASA and primary driving force for the fraud. He juggles computer models to fit his purpose of global warming alarmism the way physicists juggle math to design a semiconductor.

Math is used in that manner by fraudulent scientists to create an impenetrable wall around the subject which cannot be touched by the infinite complexities of real science aligned upon the laws of nature. Math moves (fake) science into a dark pit of unaccountability, which is exploited by power mongers for unquestionable authority. Extreme examples include relativity, the big bang and energy misdefined, which the public swallows hook, line and sinker, in addition to impenetrable areas such as quantum mechanics.

In other words, promoters of the fraudulent type of science do not relate to math as a tool of science; they relate to it as a replacement for the type of science which they don't do.

Perspective

What should be apparent by now to anyone who follows this subject is that scientists don't have the slightest ability to determine what climate is doing at the present time, let alone the future. None agree with each other on the details of any subject, on either side of the issue.

The best indication of what climate is doing is nature. A major cool-down in the north (in 2008 & 9), with ice reforming over the Arctic Ocean, says something. It says there was a massive loss of heat over the arctic. Canada is experiencing a drought, which indicates an absence of warm ocean water around the Arctic putting water vapor into the air.

Try to find a scientific explanation for these events. There is no indication in the science of the subject that these events have even occurred. A global cool-down is all that is being mentioned. Scientists do not do an analysis of nature for many reasons. First, they get paid to do something other than that. Nowdays, science is assumed to be a quantitative study. Common sense looking is not a quantitative study. So "scientists" calculate and calculate, and they wouldn't notice if the sun disappeared.

From Climate Depot:

Geologist rips Obama's 'new scare report': 'I become more skeptical every year. I am now beginning to conclude that global warming simply does not exist' - June 17, 2009

By Geophysicist Dr. David Deming, associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published numerous peer-reviewed research articles. Excerpt: The new scare report issued by the Obama administration refers (reference list) to the work of Stephen H. Schneider six times. You will recall that Schneider is infamous for telling Discover magazine (October, 1989, p. 45-48) that "we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have...each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." 2. There has been no sea level rise for the past three years. 3. Hurricane, typhoon, and tropical cyclone activity is at a 30-year low. 4. The satellite data (UAH MSU) currently show that mean global temperature is about the same as it was in June of 1979...no, if anything, it is LOWER. [...] Global "warming" is based almost entirely on the record from meteorological stations. Anthony Watt's survey of 1221 weather stations is now 70 percent complete, and shows that an astonishing 69 percent of these stations are likely to have serious errors, due to their being located near heat sources such as asphalt paving, air conditioning vents, etc. After following this subject now since the mid 1980s, I become more skeptical every year. I am now beginning to conclude that global warming simply does not exist.

Increasing Evidence for Cause of Ice Ages
Gary Novak, July 23, 2009

It's beginning to appear that the cause of ice ages is heat accumulating in the oceans. The heat keeps increasing for 10,000 years or more between ice ages. Solar energy would probably stabilize much sooner and stay near the surface, because warm water does not sink easily (Heat always rises.) So the heat apparently comes from within the earth, just as geothermal energy does. Coming from within the earth, it heats the oceans from the bottom up, which means the entire oceans accumulate heat.

Then there appears to be an interaction with Arctic ice. Artic ice constantly melts and refreezes. It was melted a thousand years ago, when the Vikings lived on Greenland. Melting and thawing creates a massive heat loss over the Arctic. This occurred over the past five or ten years. Now the Arctic is extremely cold resulting in record cold everywhere in North America which is affected by Artic air.

When the oceans get hot enough to keep putting much water vapor into the air, while Arctic cold causes it to form snow, the accumulation of snow reflects away solar energy triggering the next ice age. Whether this latest cool-down of the Arctic triggered the next ice age or is just another cycle leading up to it is yet to be determined. See The Next Ice Age May have been Triggered in 2008.

Warmest Ocean Surface, July, 2009
NASA said ocean surface heated a lot, and the air heated a little. How can the air be heating the oceans when the ocean surface heats more than the air.

The Scam is Shifting to Oceans

There is a major shift in emphasis noticeable in September, 2009, where propagandists are focusing on oceans. In part, they are trying to compensate for overlooking oceans earlier. Also, much evidence is accumulating to show oceans are warming and causing recognized effects.

To combine ocean effects into previous fraud without contradictions, the claim is that carbon dioxide is the cause of oceans warming. It's an extreme contempt for the obvious science. Solar radiation adds large amounts of energy to the oceans, and it accumulates for an unknown amount of time. Geothermal energy adds much energy to the oceans, which accumulates for thousands of years.

With no ability to account for these major sources of ocean heat (and a pretense that they don't exist), pretending that CO2 is the only factor influences ocean temperatures is fraud. Arguing over the numbers would be science; but ignoring solar and geothermal energy isn't a dispute, it's fraud.

Then when realistically considering CO2, it would have no significant effect on ocean heat, because the atmosphere has only one thousandths as much heat capacity as the oceans, while the claimed temperature increase of the atmosphere is only 0.6°C.