Greenplate Effect It Does Not Happen

Introduction

In a previous article, with the same title, I demonstrated that the Greenplate effect, does not occur.

This is the supposed back radiation effect, which purpotedly happens to a flat plate if you expose it to a radiant heat source, within a vacuum and then simply put another plate behind it. The presence of the 2^nd plate is supposed to cause an increase in the maximum steady state temperatures of the 1^st plate as well as decrease the rate of heat loss, thus causing the 1^st plate to warm more rapidly. This is a falsehood. Greenplate effect does not exist.

In my first demonstration, people criticised that the 1^st plate was supported by brackets near the light and so this, apparently caused the test to fail. That is false argument, as I will demonstrate. It was also criticised for having the 2^nd plate supported by the 1^st with plastic spacers, because apparently this caused the test to fail also. Again, this is a false argument, as I will also show.

Although, it is reassuring that if we pretended that this back radiant effect existed, it is surely so weak, its is nullified by a handful of plastic spacers, in which case, it really is a feeble force and can be ignored entirely. Although, as you will see, Radiation Greenplate Effect, is a force which does not exist.

New Experimental Arrangements

For my new arrangements I have plastic velco straps on the inside of the cylinder. These velcro straps are glued to the glass on one side and glued to small right angle aluminium brackets on the other. The 130mm black powder coated alumium disc, simply rests upon these supports.

Picture 1 – Velcro and Angle Bracket

Picture 2 – Brackets attached to inside of Cylinder

I have also added a support nipple to the bottom plate, so that the thermometer can go straight up the middle of the hole in the second plate. It is glued to the plate. This is done because the putty melts and burns and the thermometer slides.

Picture 3 – Bottom Plate

I have also changed the light bulb, from a 40 watt spiral bulb, to a 100 watt Bulb with built in reflector, this ensures that all the energy is directed upwards towards the plate & as it has a higher rating it is achieves higher steady state temperatures and achieves much quicker warming phases. I tested this bulb and fully exposed to atmosphere at room temperature, the maximum temperature of the glass achieved 206 degrees Celcius.

Picture 4 – New Bulb 100 Incandescent Halogen Reflector

These changes are more than sufficient to show that Radiation Greenplate Effect does not exist, & anyone who talks of it as if it is real is a liar, a charlatan or a faker. My demonstration model can be performed anywhere. Radiation GHE is a lie. Let no-one impart this lie upon you without you repelling it.

I have put together six different arrangements and tested each one, 5 times, with each test being performed one after the other for a duration of 10 minutes. The you-tube video which I have which shows Test 1 of each arrangement can be seen here. I video recorded all tests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL8eQxbsb6c

In the first minute of each video, I show the arrangement and then at exactly 1 minute of recording I switch on the light and record for 10 straight minutes. The unit is switched off and left to cool for 50 minutes.

The position of the bottom black plate and the cylinder itself remains unchanged through out all the tests. Each arrangement was tested on consecuitive days, so Test 1 is a cold start each time.

Arrangement 1 – Single Plate in Chamber, No Lid.

In this arrangment I placed only a single black plate in the chamber, just above the light. The chamber lid was left off so that the plate is exposed to the air. I then switched it on and recorded the temperature of the plate over 10 minutes and repeated this 5 times, with each one performed after the other after a 50 minute cooldown each time.

The chamber as the lift is left off, would naturally result in the coolest temperatures as the maximum amount of convective cooling is experienced to the plate.

Arrangement One – One Plate Open Lid
Time (Mins)	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3	Test 4	Test 5
0.0	23.3	25.7	25.7	26.9	26.3
0.5	26.8	29.9	30.0	31.7	30.5
1.0	33.1	37.1	37.6	39.1	38.1
1.5	40.2	43.5	44.3	45.9	45.5
2.0	46.7	49.9	51.3	52.6	52.8
2.5	53.3	56.5	57.7	59.3	60.0
3.0	59.5	62.1	64.1	65.5	66.4
3.5	65.2	67.5	69.9	70.9	72.7
4.0	70.5	72.3	75.1	76.0	78.3
4.5	74.9	77.0	80.1	80.9	83.5
5.0	79.5	81.1	84.6	85.2	88.2
5.5	83.6	85.6	88.7	89.3	92.5
6.0	87.3	89.5	92.5	93.1	96.5
6.5	91.0	92.9	96.2	96.4	100.4
7.0	94.2	95.9	99.5	99.5	103.9
7.5	97.5	98.8	102.7	102.5	107.1
8.0	100.5	101.5	105.7	105.4	110.4
8.5	103.3	104.1	108.1	107.7	113.9
9.0	105.6	106.3	110.7	110.0	116.4
9.5	107.7	108.5	113.0	112.3	118.5
10.0	110.0	110.4	115.0	114.3	120.5
Change	86.7	84.7	89.3	87.4	94.2

 

Here we can see that, each test is warmer than the last as some residual heat has remained during the 50 minute cooldown period. Although test 2 after 10 minutes had the same peak temperature as test 1, despite starting slightly higher. Peak temperature between 110 & 120.5 degrees Celsius were experienced.

Graph 1 – Arrangement 1

Arrangement 2 – Single Plate in Chamber, Lid Placed & Valves Closed.

In this arrangement there is a single plate as previously, this time I have placed the plastic chamber lid in position and ensured that the valves are closed to prevent any air ingress / egress.

It would be expected that restricting the convective cooling, by adding the lid, will result in quicker warmng and higher peak temperatures, which is exactly what occurred. This is how a greenhouse works.

Arrangement Two – One Plate Closed Lid
Time (Mins)	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3	Test 4	Test 5
0.0	23.1	25.6	24.3	27.3	24.4
0.5	24.7	30.5	29.0	32.5	29.5
1.0	28.6	38.6	36.9	41.2	38.3
1.5	33.3	46.0	44.7	49.4	46.5
2.0	38.8	53.7	52.1	57.3	54.2
2.5	44.6	60.6	59.3	64.9	62.0
3.0	50.6	67.4	66.1	71.5	68.8
3.5	57.4	73.7	72.3	78.2	75.0
4.0	63.7	79.3	78.1	83.9	80.8
4.5	77.1	84.4	83.6	89.5	86.4
5.0	84.4	89.2	88.4	94.7	91.5
5.5	90.1	94.0	93.4	99.5	96.2
6.0	94.8	97.9	97.5	103.8	100.6
6.5	99.3	101.7	101.9	107.6	104.3
7.0	103.5	105.1	105.8	111.5	107.9
7.5	107.2	108.1	109.2	115.0	111.4
8.0	111.1	111.4	112.8	118.0	114.5
8.5	114.2	114.4	115.9	121.0	117.4
9.0	117.1	117.2	118.7	123.5	120.0
9.5	119.8	120.0	121.3	125.8	122.4
10.0	122.2	122.4	123.6	127.7	124.5
Change	99.1	96.8	99.3	100.4	100.1

 

We can see that peak temperatures are higher here and that temperatures increased more quickly than previously. Peak temperatures of between 122.2 & 127.7 were recorded.

As you will see, the lid of the roof offered no back radiant heat induction upon the plate. The temperature increase is entirely explained by a reduction in the rate of convective cooling.

Graph 2 – Arrangement 2

No idea why Test 1 had that sort of curve, nothing changed with the test, I just put it down to the thermometer lag on the read out.

Arrangement 3 – Two Plates – Open Lid

Here, this arrangement is the same as Arrangement 1, except now there are two plates instead of 1.

The convective restriction is much more stark than the merely placing the lid. As the 2^nd plate is the same 130mm diameter as the first plate and there is a mere 2.5mm space around this disc to the glass, offering minimal escape path for the air. Meaning the space for convective cooling of the bottom plate is only that between the 1^st and 2^nd which is a mere 40mm. The nipple on the bottom plate is 20mm long. This ensures no contact between the two plates. This restriction causes a large increase in peak temperatures and an increase in the rate of warming also.

Arrangement Three – Two Plate Open Lid
Time (Mins)	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3	Test 4	Test 5
0.0	24.4	25.8	24.3	26.3	26.7
0.5	27.5	29.9	28.2	31.0	31.1
1.0	34.5	37.6	36.3	39.1	39.1
1.5	42.6	45.4	44.5	47.3	47.1
2.0	51.6	53.5	53.1	55.4	55.3
2.5	59.7	61.2	61.2	63.6	63.4
3.0	67.3	68.6	68.7	71.0	71.0
3.5	74.8	75.8	76.2	78.1	78.4
4.0	81.8	82.2	83.1	84.8	85.2
4.5	88.3	88.7	89.6	91.4	91.9
5.0	94.5	94.8	95.8	97.4	97.9
5.5	100.7	100.6	101.7	102.9	103.8
6.0	105.9	106.1	107.5	108.2	109.1
6.5	111.6	111.3	113.0	113.4	114.3
7.0	116.5	116.3	117.9	117.9	119.4
7.5	120.6	120.9	122.4	122.0	123.6
8.0	124.8	125.2	126.4	125.8	127.7
8.5	128.5	129.3	130.8	129.5	131.7
9.0	132.3	133.0	134.6	133.1	135.4
9.5	135.6	136.7	138.1	136.5	138.7
10.0	139.0	139.8	141.3	139.5	141.9
Change	114.6	114.0	117.0	113.2	115.2

We can see that peak temperature after 10 minutes is between 139 and 141.9 degrees Celsius.

Graph 3 – Arrangement 3

 Arrangement 4 – Two Plates – Closed Lid

This is the same as arrangement 3, except as in arrangement 2 I have now placed the lid on the chamber. This made no difference to the bottom plate, as the convective restriction between plate 1 and 2 has not changed. Only the rate of cooling of the 2^nd plate would be affected.

Arrangement Four – Two Plate Closed Lid
Time (Mins)	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3	Test 4	Test 5
0.0	21.9	25.5	27.9	27.3	28.2
0.5	25.9	29.2	31.9	31.5	32.7
1.0	32.3	35.9	38.9	39.0	40.3
1.5	39.8	43.3	45.9	46.8	47.9
2.0	47.4	50.7	53.3	54.3	55.9
2.5	54.8	58.1	60.3	62.0	63.4
3.0	62.1	64.8	67.4	69.1	70.8
3.5	69.0	71.5	74.0	75.9	77.8
4.0	75.6	77.4	80.4	82.8	84.6
4.5	82.0	83.5	86.9	89.0	90.8
5.0	87.9	89.1	92.4	94.9	96.8
5.5	93.7	94.7	98.1	100.9	102.4
6.0	98.8	99.8	103.5	106.5	107.9
6.5	104.1	104.7	108.2	111.9	113.2
7.0	109.1	109.7	113.3	117.1	118.2
7.5	114.2	114.3	117.6	121.5	122.6
8.0	119.0	118.3	121.8	125.7	126.6
8.5	123.0	121.8	125.3	129.9	130.5
9.0	126.5	124.8	128.9	133.5	134.3
9.5	130.2	127.9	132.3	137.2	137.8
10.0	133.5	130.6	135.2	140.0	141.1
Change	111.6	105.1	107.3	112.7	112.9

 

Peak temperatures between 130.5 & 141.1 were experienced, maximum attained was no higher than in arrangement 3.

Graph 4 – Arrangement 4

Arrangement 5 – Two Plates, Closed Lid & Full Vacuum

In this arrangement I had the two plates as in arrangements 3 & 4, but this time the lid was placed and all the air was sucked out to provide a full Vacuum.

Arrangement Five – Two Plate Vacuum
Time (Mins)	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3	Test 4	Test 5
0.0	23.0	28.5	25.7	27.9	27.6
0.5	26.0	32.8	29.8	32.4	31.6
1.0	33.1	40.7	36.9	40.3	39.0
1.5	41.5	48.3	44.0	48.1	46.2
2.0	49.9	55.7	51.6	55.7	53.6
2.5	57.5	63.8	59.0	63.6	60.6
3.0	65.7	71.0	65.9	70.7	67.4
3.5	72.6	77.9	73.1	77.9	74.3
4.0	79.8	84.4	79.5	84.7	80.5
4.5	86.1	90.8	86.1	91.1	86.7
5.0	92.3	96.8	92.1	97.2	92.4
5.5	98.2	102.7	97.8	103.2	97.9
6.0	104.0	107.8	103.7	109.1	103.3
6.5	109.7	113.3	109.1	114.7	108.1
7.0	115.2	118.6	114.3	119.9	113.4
7.5	120.3	123.1	119.4	124.4	117.7
8.0	124.6	127.6	124.2	129.3	122.0
8.5	128.8	132.0	128.5	133.6	126.0
9.0	132.8	136.3	132.9	137.9	130.0
9.5	136.5	140.1	136.7	141.9	133.5
10.0	140.0	143.9	140.3	145.5	137.2
Change	117.0	115.4	114.6	117.6	109.6

Temperatures in this arrangement are above that of 3 and 4, with temperatures in the region of 137.2 to 145.5 achieved. Warming rates were also much higher. With all tests being over 100 deg C in less than 6 minutes.

This is no surprise as there is no convective cooling occuring at all. The other arrangements were warmer because we reduced the rate of convective cooling. With no convective cooling only radiation cooling is available to the plates and a negligible conductive cooling to the glass via the velcro straps. (Borroscillate glass has a high thermal resistance).

Graph 5 – Arrangement 5

  Arrangement 6 – Single Plate, Closed Lid & Full Vacuum

In this final arrangement, the top plate was removed and test performed in full vacuum.

Arrangement Six – One Plate Vacuum
Time (Mins)	Test 1	Test 2	Test 3	Test 4	Test 5
0.0	22.7	28.5	27.6	28.2	27.7
0.5	27.1	32.6	32.7	33.1	32.7
1.0	34.8	40.7	41.2	41.9	40.7
1.5	43.2	48.6	49.4	50.1	48.7
2.0	51.9	56.6	57.5	58.4	56.5
2.5	60.4	64.6	65.4	66.4	64.1
3.0	68.4	71.8	72.7	73.7	71.1
3.5	76.2	79.1	80.2	80.9	78.1
4.0	83.6	85.8	86.7	87.2	84.5
4.5	91.0	92.2	93.5	93.6	91.0
5.0	97.6	98.2	99.5	99.5	97.1
5.5	104.4	104.0	105.3	105.4	103.1
6.0	110.5	109.4	110.7	111.1	108.6
6.5	116.1	114.6	115.9	116.5	114.2
7.0	121.6	119.5	120.7	121.5	119.6
7.5	126.0	123.6	124.7	125.8	124.3
8.0	130.2	127.5	128.7	130.4	128.9
8.5	134.0	131.5	132.6	134.7	133.2
9.0	137.9	134.8	136.1	138.7	137.1
9.5	141.4	138.1	139.5	142.7	141.1
10.0	144.6	141.2	142.7	145.9	144.6
Change	121.9	112.7	115.1	117.7	116.9

 

We can see that peak temperatures of 141.2 to 145.9 were experienced. The rates of heating are virtually identical to arrangement 5, with the excpetion being test 5 on arrangement 5,which I have chosen to ignore on my statisitcal analysis. Nothing was changed, the cylinders are air tight and hold with no change in Vacuum pressure over 24 hours. I presumed the light output fluctuated on the low side.

Graph 6 – Arrangement 6

The presence of the 2^nd plate has no effect on the peak temperature or rate of heating experienced after 10 minutes. This is more obvious when comparing the averaged data on graphs below.

Mean Analysis

Average	A1	A2	A3	A4 (Exc O)	A5	A5(Exc O)	A6
0.0	25.6	24.9	25.5	26.3	26.5	26.3	26.9
0.5	29.8	29.2	29.5	30.5	30.5	30.3	31.6
1.0	37.0	36.7	37.3	37.6	38.0	37.8	39.9
1.5	43.9	44.0	45.4	45.1	45.6	45.5	48.0
2.0	50.7	51.2	53.8	52.7	53.3	53.2	56.2
2.5	57.4	58.3	61.8	60.1	60.9	61.0	64.2
3.0	63.5	64.9	69.3	67.4	68.1	68.3	71.5
3.5	69.2	71.3	76.7	74.2	75.2	75.4	78.9
4.0	74.4	77.2	83.4	80.9	81.8	82.1	85.6
4.5	79.3	84.2	90.0	87.2	88.2	88.5	92.3
5.0	83.7	89.6	96.1	93.0	94.2	94.6	98.4
5.5	87.9	94.6	101.9	98.8	100.0	100.5	104.4
6.0	91.8	98.9	107.4	104.2	105.6	106.2	110.1
6.5	95.4	103.0	112.7	109.4	111.0	111.7	115.5
7.0	98.6	106.8	117.6	114.4	116.3	117.0	120.6
7.5	101.7	110.2	121.9	119.0	121.0	121.8	124.9
8.0	104.7	113.6	126.0	123.3	125.5	126.4	129.1
8.5	107.4	116.6	130.0	127.2	129.8	130.7	133.2
9.0	109.8	119.3	133.7	130.8	134.0	135.0	136.9
9.5	112.0	121.9	137.1	134.4	137.7	138.8	140.6
10.0	114.0	124.1	140.3	137.5	141.4	142.4	143.8
	88.5	99.1	114.8	111.1	114.8	116.2	116.9

Arrangements 4 & 5 had a test with abnormally low peak temperatures, I elected to ignore these. Here we can see that Arrangement 5 mean temperatures are virtually identical to Arrangement 6 mean temperatures across the 5 tests. Wheras the increasing temperatures and faster warming patterns are obvious between the arrangements where convective cooling restrictions were applied and then convection was removed altogether.

This is also as represented in the graph below.

Graph 7 – Mean Averaged Temperature Curves

We can see in Graph 7, that the Vacuum arrangements are the hottest and warm the fastest, with virtually indistinguishable lines between arrangement 5 & 6.

Conclusion

The 1^st arrangement was coolest and warmed least slowly, because the lower plate had the highest level of convective cooling exposed to it. The 2^nd arrangement, the application of the lid, raised temperatures roughly by 5 to 10 degrees as the convective cooling was restricted to that inside the chamber only. This is how a greenhouse works. The addittion of the lid, gave no radiant heating boost to the bottom plate.

Arrangements 3 & 4 gave roughly similar results to the temperatures of the bottom plates, because convection was restricted to the volume of air trapped in the 40mm space between the plates.

Arrangements 5 & 6 had no air in them at all, thus experienced no convective cooling and only cooled by radiation. This is why they exhibited virtually identical patterns of warming. No reduction in the rate of cooling, as a result of a supposed heat gain from the presence of the 2^nd plate occurred. If the back radiant effect was real, the temperature of the 1st plate would have been much higher indeed and warmed far quicker, but it did not.

This is because Radiation Greenhouse Effect as a force does not exist. The mathematical explanation given in the Greenplate effect is wrong, it is false. To use it, is to mislead people. Any theories and fake physics based upon it all wrong, they are quite simply falsehoods. 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics forbids this back radiant heating, back radiant heating which did not & does not occur as everyone can quite plainly see.

Geraint Hughes

 

Bridging The Gap! Greenhouse Gas Theory Fail

Written by Geraint Hughes

Below is an exploration of how we should think about the intensity of radiation incident upon a surface.

In this article I am going to help push forward everyone’s understanding of the problem we true scientists and engineers face, when pushing back against the climate crisis lies being imposed upon us and help us all to WIN.

It is important that we do win, because we ARE being lied to on a monumental world wide scale and we need to arm ourselves with real and true knowledge in a manner that is not only right, but convincing and above all, can be shown to be right.

Now, it has quite often been stated by others that using an averaging approach to determine planetary surface temperatures is wrong and that we should instead use temperatures which are calculated using the intensity of the radiation which is incoming as using an average gives us temperatures which are just, “too low.”

For more on this you can read the book.  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Slaying-Sky-Dragon-Greenhouse-Theory/dp/1901546373.

A lot of alarmists, when told this, just scoff and think it a bit ridiculous to make such suggestions, they should not do this and I am going to explain to you all why that is and show the quick and easy reason as to why that is, which anyone can do which shows exactly the mistake that averaging can lead to. You will see it can lead to some massive errors.

In my book (cover, top) I made the statement below.

“To think that the cold glass is making the ground warmer because of radiation is like saying standing beside a fire, and then saying that you’re making the fire warmer, because your skin radiation is going back to the fire.  That’s just plain ridiculous.

When I have made this point to “Frizzlers” in the past, they tell me, that I don’t understand thermal dynamics of radiation, unfortunately for them I do.  I know it precisely which is how I know they are wrong, I can do Mechanical Thermodynamics of radiation maths.”

And I am going to elaborate some more on how it is I PRECISELY KNOW that they are wrong.

In my book, I showed the 1^st stage approximation approach to quickly determine steady state temperatures of objects in a vacuum, in space, in order to help educate people so they can be armed and fight back against climate alarmists.

0 = ά E A(a) – έ A (e) σ T⁴

I then also explain that.

“This is the equation which initially explains steady state temperatures of objects in space, before we start looking at specifics of how precisely energy moves from one part to the next.  It is the first stage of determining temperatures of objects in space and it is an approximate approach. This shows that the energy in, must balance with the energy out, the principle of energy conservation.”

So Energy in must match energy out.

ά E A(a) = έ A (e) σ T4

I have underlined and put in bold the important bit you need to know.  So let’s now, move a bit more onto some specifics and more precise corrections which need to be performed, to get a more accurate picture of what is occurring. This is what I call.

“BRIDGING THE GAP!”

Why?  Because there can in many cases be a massive gap, in fact in some instances a gigantic disparity, between what an averaging approximation calculation shows and reality.  Reality can be arrived at with more precise and properly performed calculations.  And I promise, I will do it without using the dreaded word, “Flux.” 😀  ooooh a challenge.

In my book I showed some examples such a flat plate, a greenhouse and a cube using the average approximation approach.  I showed, that even using an averaging approach, we can see that a plate with a greenhouse attached would be cooler than just a plate so how can people say “radiation greenhouse effect induces warming.”  I was thinking about including some more examples and going into deeper detail but I didn’t want my book to be too overwhelming, so at that point decided against it.

Learning the basics is a necessary first step before you can move on to bigger and harder things.  No one expects a baby to learn to walk by being whipped into a sprint.

So here I will elaborate a bit more, so we can all “fight back” in a better and more well equipped manner, making the gigantic assumption of course that you have all read and understood my book. If not, you should all rush out and grab one, it’s a great help in fighting off the alarmists I promise.  😉

If we “average approximate” the temperature of a flat plate in space with both sides exposed to space, we get the temperature of 331k.  Because we assume that the plate is “emitting” (a more accurate word would be “losing”) energy on both sides.  I.e There is incoming 1367 watts and therefore to balance this there is outgoing on both sides of 683.5 watts.

Such as in this picture here:

Diagram 1 – Planar Plate Calculation Averaged Approximation Approach

Now, this is where averaging starts to fall down and this falling down, replicates itself across all the “global warming models.”  Which are by the way, quite clearly wrong.

This is because you can-not consider the side which is absorbing the energy from the sun, to be a “losing” surface.  This is the side where energy is being “gained” by the object in space, not lost.

Yes, the object, the flat plate, is “emitting” on both sides and these emissions can be recorded, seen and measured using a IR meter, but that is not how you should look at it.  You need to change your viewpoint.    If you placed yourself in front of the plate in order to take a reading with your IR camera assuming you were on some sort of space walk, you would start to “Shield” the plate from the sun and it would have a reduction in energy gain and start to exhibit lower steady state temperatures.

The plate is gaining 1367 watts on the sunny side and losing 1367 watts on the dark side.  It is not losing 1367 on both sides, that is wrong.  How can the plate be losing energy to a great big ball of fire which is millions of degrees Celsius in temperature?

What you need to do, is split the sides between “gaining” and “losing.”

When all you have is an object in space and the sun, this is an easy task to perform.

So we modify the equation.

ά E A(a) = έ [A (e)- A(a)] σ T4

You see what I did there, I highlighted the important bit in red and bold.  You deduct the area of absorption, (the gaining side) from your total area of losses.  You don’t consider the sunny side to be losing heat, because it isn’t.

So let’s do that with our straightforward example of the plate in space.

This is the “Planar Plate Calculation”

The plate, floating in space, perfectly perpendicular to the suns rays, has 2 sides exposed to space.  But the side of the plate which is receiving the suns rays, you can not count as part of your calculation of heat lost for determining steady state temperatures.  So for a plate, what this means is your area for emission for losses, is cut in half.  What does this mean?  It means only the reverse side of the plate is used for determining heat lost to space, which means you end up with a much higher steady state temperature.

So for a plate in space, the steady state temperature is not 331k, but it is in fact, 394K.

This exactly matches the temperature you would expect if you had a flat plate and then put a block of insulation behind it, when using the average approximation approach.  In fact, if we performed the calculation even more accurately, with the block of insulation it would be cooler, because there would be thermal conductance, transferring energy from the plate to the block, due to physical contact.

Diagram 2 – Corrected Planar Plate Calculation.

So what we actually get using a corrected equation for a flat plate is 394k, that’s a disparity of 63 degrees.  That’s quite a lot.

And for those that want proof and complain about lack of using “peer reviewed reputable links, blah, blah, baby baby why did you link “I love my CO2 I read desmog blog”, cry whine baby, blah blah.”  Read this and start to realise the truth, that you are being lied to by the alarmist loonies.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/estimating_the_temperature.htm

“The plate is in sunlight. Sunlight warms the plate, and the plate radiates thermal energy back into space.” & “Thus, the nominal temperature of an object, in space and in sunlight, is 394 °K.” are the important take home points you need.

This article produced by Nasa isn’t elaborating on the mistake alarmists make but it is pointing out that at a height of 300km a flat plate in space is not warmer due to friction caused by atmospheric particles and as such friction can be ignored.

However, it does show that 394K is the temperature you should arrive at for the plate in space, before considering friction.  331K, the averaging approach is just too low.

Are you as an alarmist, really going to embarrass yourself and argue against this? I’m sorry, did Nasa get their planar plate calc wrong, or are you a clueless nitwit? You truly that hooked on the corrosive climate fraud crack that you just can’t cut the habit?

Yet it is this averaging approach, which EVERY SINGLE ALARMIST, is using and relying on.  All of them are.  It is this error, which leads them on to make all sorts of daft proclamations, such as “tipping point”, “reductions in rate of cooling.” “Green-plate Effect” (something I addressed in my book and defeated whilst still adhering to the purely average approximate approach with all its errors) “Climate Crisis”, “Global Warming” “Radiation Greenhouse Effect” etc etc.

They are plucking random daft explanations out of a magic rabbit hat, in order to “BRIDGE THE GAP “ between reality and their mis-understanding of it.

They are just plain ignorant, it really is that bad.  Or of course they know and are over-acting in order to conceal the lie.

This correction can be applied to any object, a cube or even a sphere, or yes indeed, our planet.

It is this correction, to the average approximation approach, which all global warmist’s have neglected to mention or even consider when explaining why the Earth is at the temperature it is at.  They are blatantly lying to you when they say it is because of “Radiation Greenhouse Effect.”  The disparity, the one caused by considering the “Gaining “ side as part of the “losing side” when performing average steady state equations is the explanation as to why there is difference between the calculated temperature of 255k which the false, lying, deceiving temperature alarmists harp on about and the reality we see an feel everyday of 288k or there-abouts.

Using an averaging approach for a sphere we would get a temperature of 279K.  So lets do some quick math using the more accurate corrected approach, 1367per meter gained, 1367 per meter lost, but with only a hemi-sphere rather than a sphere for determining losing areas, making the wild assumption of isothermic conditions (which is clearly not a precise method)  our sphere in space and ignoring all thermal mass, we would arrive at a steady state temperature, interestingly enough of 300k. A  disparity of 21 degrees.  Well, that’s your global warming greenhouse effect right there, with no gases. If we started to allow for albedo to reduce energy in & reflection, we can easily reduce to 288K, depending on what assumptions we made.

NOTHING TO DO WITH RADIATION GREENHOUSE EFFECT OR WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERING IT.

The entirety of the Climate Claptrap industry is all based around hiding this fact and not revealing what is really happening.  This is their dirty secret.

Radiation greenhouse effect, is a lie and you all need to understand this.  The authorities have become fake, those we rely on to teach and look after us have turned against us and are filling us with lies on a daily basis.  It is time for the deceit, fraud and corrosive climate corruption to end.

The problem, is one of lack of understanding and one of lack of capability (or in the case of alarmists –WILLINGNESS) to perform the calculations in a more accurate and correct manner.  This is something the elite lying authorities long ago realised and hatched their schemes against us.  Abusing the people on mass, brainwashing the mass populace to believe in fantasy, taking advantage of our lack of capability in figuring out their lies.

A capability which we all now have and exposing the truth is now something we can all do, when repelling alarmist liars.

This omission, by the alarmists in all their models and falsified research explains the world we see around us.  Not Climate Crisis.  Climate Crisis is not the real issue, Climate Crisis Fraud however, most certainly is.  And this is best tackled by taking direct action against those whom perpetrate it, the law of every country in the world, needs to reflect this.

CO2 Back Irradiance does not induce warming

https://www.thepostil.com/evidence-co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas/?fbclid=IwAR1Q-w5aDkmzKzPDYV7aOLxEg6v15-1IrMklpeKNtCyP8gamPe2AdfWugAs Postil Article

Evidence – CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas

I believe that it is very important – in fact, the most important thing for all citizens – to know and understand that they are indeed being deceived and manipulated by the state and state actors (climate activists, left wing educators, mainstream media, etc.) into believing untruths.

It is not a conspiracy theory, it is real. There is a wide-spread deliberate deception being imposed upon the people of the world to force them to spend money, to pay taxes – all in exchange for nothing. Then be worried sick and ridden with guilt about “destroying the planet.”

Believe me, they are laughing at you. They are mocking you, and they are making a mint in the process. This is not a joke. We all need to look around and take it in. This is indeed what is happening.

People with integrity need to stand up, be counted and have the courage and will to speak the truth. They need to speak the truth, and also demonstrate the truth. For you will face the accusation, as I have, of …“what do you know. I have a PhD. I am an expert. I know better, so shut up and believe me, DENIER!!!!.” To which they have now also added. “It’s the law! So, pay me my CO2 taxes, peasant.” They are sick – every last one of these tricksters.

The fact that I am a qualified professional, with decades of experience, building some of the most technically complex buildings imaginable, is neither here nor there. I am brushed off like a fool; as we all are. We are all being taken for fools. We are having the wool pulled over our eyes. We all need to wake up to that fact and do something about it.

To this end I have conducted several experiments, so that I can demonstrate to people, live if necessary, that fake climate alarmist scientists are teaching lies, plain and simple. An entire industry is living like a horde of parasites on the back of a whale – and we the people are that whale.

Wow, some claim, I am sure some of you may be thinking.

So, let’s delve, briefly into my experiments, which can be found on YouTube. There will, of course, be more.

Experiment 1 – CO2 Cause’s Lighting Incandescent Filaments to Dim

If we were to believe the lies that Carbon Dioxide is the cause of global warming, via its mechanism of back radiation, then adding CO2 gas to a vacuum chamber, which within contains a tungsten filament, should cause the temperature of the filament to rise.

An electrically heated straight tungsten filament contained within a vintage vacuum bulb glows brightly at approximately 2000K. It emits some of its radiation in the IR wave bands which CO2 most strongly absorbs and so it would be expected that any back-radiant heating effect would be maximal and self-evident. Unfortunately, as we will see later, it is not.

This can be seen in the CO2 spectral absorption graph, where its absorbance in 4 to 5 micron wavelength (light bulb spectra) is far in excess of the strength of its absorption in the 14 to 16 micron wavelengths (more earth Spectra).

Spectral Graph of absorption and emission of CO²

Many people do not know that CO2 absorbs strongly in the shortwave IR part of the spectrum. This is one of the reasons that the CO2 gas in a bottle experiment is misleading, because the CO2 gas in the bottle is absorbing radiation, DIRECTLY emitted from the light bulb, in a wavelength, which the Earth just does not emit, because it is far too cool to do so. I elaborate on this in my book, Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science. There are other reasons as to why that experiment and others like are it misleading. Back irradiance from a gas as a form of heat induction is just plain wrong, as I can show.

Therefore, we would expect the CO2 to absorb well this radiation being emitted, by the filament, be warmed by it, send the IR back to the filament, which would in turn become hotter and then glow more brightly as a result.

So, how to go about proving if this back radiant effect is all powerful, or if in fact, other far more dominant factors are at play. What perhaps is actually occurring?

To this end, I have had constructed the twin vacuum chamber, portable comparison experiment, so that I can compare two different states of heat loss with each other and show this effect live, if necessary.

The schematic of the experiment is shown below, along with a picture of it.

Filament Cooling Experiment Schematic

I may in future, make single chambers, as those are more affordable, lighter, easier to use and far more portable. Everyone, who wants to fight back against the lies of the alarmists, should have one of these. Alarmists cannot argue against it, without making themselves sound like the idiots that they are. And believe me, they do try.

Briefly, you can see that this arrangement allows me to evacuate two chambers, so I can make a comparison between two straight tungsten filaments, one in a vacuum and the other with a gas added.

Filament Cooling Experiment Photograph

To the see the experiment in action and an explanation of how it works, click this link.

I conducted several different comparisons to record the differences between the two, which can be seen in this video. The main comparisons are between the Vacuum bulb and the filament in carbon dioxide from 0 Bar and 0.7 Bar.

This is the picture of the filament at 0 Bar, a Vacuum.

Freeze Frame Exposed Tungsten Elements in a Vacuum 0.0 Bar – Bright

You can see this is equally bright across the entire length of the filament – i.e., the filament is clearly very bright. It is bright top, middle and bottom.

So, what happens if I add a small amount of Carbon Dioxide to the filament? Are the filament surfaces “globally warmed” by the CO² thus experiencing an increase in temperature as a result of back radiation, as all the experts say it would do?

Well, actually, no. No such warming occurs. To think it could, is actually quite silly. That is what an ignorant child, who can be brainwashed by deceptive agenda-ridden teachers, could be misled into believing. Just as people are misled into believing CO2 causes surface temperatures and ocean temperatures worldwide to rise.

Freeze Frame of Exposed Tungsten Elements in a CO² Gas 0.7 Bar – DIM!!!

The comparison is stark and evident, isn’t it?  It is noticeably far less bright.

At 0.7 Bar CO² it can be seen that the bottom is now not even glowing at all, with the middle dimmed visibly to a faint red glow, and the top glowing much less bright. The thinness of the filament is more evident. In the first picture, the filaments look thick because of the brightness of the light. The filaments are approximately 0.005mm thick.

So, we can concretely say that the addition of CO2 gas had no “heating effect” on the filaments at all. The cooling effect, however, on the filament is entirely evident. The cooling and convective effect could never be overcome by an IR emissive gas, even if we pretended to ourselves that the tiny amount of back radiance did cause some sort of heating.

From a radiation steady-state-temperature point of view, the effective surface area for cooling of the filament cage has increased. There are millions upon millions of molecules in this chamber and this energy is now being spread among them; whereas previously this was not the case.

As the gas is emissive, the molecules would be emitting the radiation in all directions. In effect, creating a filament/gas body which has a larger number of molecules and therefore a larger surface area for emissive cooling, compared to just the filament on its own.

This increase in 3-dimensional surface area for cooling could never be overcome by an IR gas, no matter how many thousand times more powerful, as supposed greenhouse gas, it was. The addition of the IR effects of the gas could never overcome conduction cooling losses, convective cooling losses, or the increase in radiation losses due to having a larger 3D emissive area for cooling.

It is an idiotic thing to even think it could, yet this is the kind of idiotic backward thinking, twaddle talking alarmists expect everyone to believe. Correction, FORCE everyone to believe. In short, they are all a bunch of brown-shirts, whether they know it or not.

Increasing the current would make the filament hotter, adding Trillions and Trillions of CO2 gas molecules, which could never replicate that increase.

Any country which has a CO2 reduction law, a carbon-pricing mechanism, CO2 taxes of any kind, Carbon Levies, or pays subsidies to fake CO2 offsetting companies, and so on and so forth, is imposing LIES.

Why wouldn’t an untrustworthy government do such a thing?  Of course, they would. To have the chance to take someone’s money and have nothing to give back in return is a dream for them.

I actually sent letters to many politicians, mainstream television media outlets and radio news stations in the UK. None of them brought this information to the public. Why would they? They are raking in money from the scam. Why would they want to stop the money flood?  It was only Principia Scientific International and now also the Postil, who were willing to publish such news. They have the guts to stand up – so should we all.

Here is a final comparison from this experiment, zoomed out so you can see both. The difference is obvious to all. The left is with a vacuum the right is with CO2 inside at 0.7 Bar. This is an indisputable fact. Yet I have actually had many politicians and fake alarmists dispute it. That on its own tells you all you need to know. They are desperate to ignore the truth and cling to their lies.

Experiment No 2 – Temperature Test Comparisons Small Chambers

I received hundreds of troll comments, most of which I deleted; some claiming to be professors, experts at NASA, and all sorts of nonsense. Whether they were true or not, I have no idea.

Although some from their links did seem genuine in their claims of expertise, but what they were claiming was not. I received the same sort of nonsense claims from politicians also, as I have been sending out letters telling them, they need to repeal CO2 tax laws, and that the “Climate Crisis” is nothing but a lie.

Their crazy claims ranged from, “You didn’t leave it on long enough for the tipping point to occur,” to “The base is shiny. It’s affecting the experiment,” to even, “Light bulbs don’t emit IR!”  (Yep, the alarmists trolls will lie pathologically like this.)

But we all know – many politicians are nothing but cowards.

What you see, in the comparison picture above, is the truth. Nothing can change that.

We all need to be brave and understand we are being lied to. That’s right, kiddies, Santa is not real.

In order to further progress my claim and provide further evidence that we are being lied to, I have conducted a series of temperature tests, again using light bulbs and my vacuum chamber, some gases and a thermometer.

What I did, is that I performed some simple comparisons. In these smaller chambers, I placed a thermometer against the surface of the bulb, to measure the surface bulb temperature and then left it there with a camera watching it, to record the temperature. I evacuated the chamber and performed a baseline comparison with the bulb in a vacuum.

I then performed a comparison with Argon and another with CO2. The results were not surprising to me, but they do surprise every climate alarmist, or anyone who has been fooled into believing them. When I ask, they all expect CO2 to be the hottest. Why wouldn’t people think this?

They have in some instances grown up, being force-fed the lies that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” which “induces warming,” via the fake mechanism of “back irradiance.” They think this is the gospel truth. It is not. It is Satan’s lies, and the alarmist preachers are nothing but false prophets and con-artists disguised as saviours.

The results of the comparisons are below. These too can all be seen on YouTube as I uploaded them. They are not entertaining to watch; they are there to show proof. They are there so you can all see the truth.

To help understand the tables – RT (Room Temperature) indicates the temperature which a free-standing digital temperature probe indicated to be the room-temperature. The starting temperature was indicated on the digital probe inside the vacuum chamber, as I activated the light.

This probe touches the side of the bulb, and it reads the highest temperature, which is the bulb glass. This is not perfect; and, in due course, I will get better thermometers. But this is sufficient to show that the concept of gaseous back radiant induced heating just doesn’t work.

In each instance, the chamber was evacuated first, pressurised and then the light activated.

In the first test, I used a Vintage Squirrel Cage bulb, and pressurised the gases to 0.5 Bar. In the second test, I used a Spiral Vintage bulb, and pressurised the gases to 0.6 Bar. The result is similar in both instances. (My squirrel cage bulb blew L)

You can see here that in both tests, the bulb surface temperatures were cooler than in the vacuum, than with CO2 added. In the first test, after 20 minutes, the Vacuum achieved a maximum temperature of 69.1, and in the second test 63.6. CO2 on the other hand achieved a maximum temperature of 63.3 and 59.2 with the different bulbs respectively, which was amazingly, COOLER!

The addition of CO2 gas had no warming effect, only a cooling one. And when I compared Argon to CO2, I found that Argon resulted in warmer conditions and faster temperature rises than CO2, despite the fact that Argon is not a “Greenhouse Gas,” which is actually fake and misleading terminology.

Now amazingly, I still had troll comments about these tests too. One of the most common troll comments was that my experiment was too small and that I should use a much taller tower in order to get more back radiance from the CO2.

Yes, this really is how ignorant some people are. They will say anything and grasp at whatever silly straw they can, to hold onto their lies. They are in effect “pathological.” They are not scientists. They aren’t being reasonable. They are suffering mental health issues. They are in denial; and thus, they are the Deniers. Deniers, who refuse to acknowledge the truth, even when they see it.

Experiment No 3 – Tall Tower Chamber

But I wanted to see if they were right or wrong. I got a chamber which was 2.6 times the height of the smaller chambers – just to see what happens. Would I be proved wrong?  Would the extra CO2 induce more back radiance, like all the fakexperts predict?

The results are in the table below:

These can all be seen here.

The difference is stark, obvious, undeniable and indisputable. This is how it is.

The difference between how a greenhouse works and the lies being preached by deceivers in schools, colleges and universities looks as stark as this:

The Lies They Teach

What Truth Looks Like:

This and so much more is elaborated upon in my book. Everyone, everywhere needs to arm themselves with as much knowledge that they can get their hands on, against the deceivers of the state, to repel their lies and take direct action against them.

The climate of corruption, around the money-flood, which fake activism has instigated, has corroded all forms of government, especially democracy. The pernicious deceit and lies need to be purged out of all corners of society.

Any scientist who tells you CO2 induces GMST to rise is nothing but a charlatan, a two-bit actor reading out his lines and playing a part in an act designed to con you.

CO2 does not act like an insulating blanket. It does not induce warming of the surface, which means that the radiation greenhouse effect and all its preachers are just pure pompous ridiculous self-serving fraudsters and fools.

I have more experiments in the works and I will broadcast the results of those when they are completed.

It is clear that “True Science” is being denied us and our children by the state which we have entrusted to look after, and educate, us. We all now know that we need to take that power back and demand that the lies stop, and we need to throw the faker politicians out of power.

I would even go as far as jail the ringleaders and fine any organisation found to be engaging in such despicable deceptions and frauds. Oh, and if the silly cry-baby climate protesters don’t like that, they can face the water cannons; and I’m pretty sure those crusty sensitive snowflakes will find jail enjoyable too. It’s what they deserve.

Geraint Hughes is the author of Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science.

Taller Tower Test Exposes CO2 Back Radiation Nonsense

Written by Geraint Hughes

To debunk the theory of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE), which is claimed to be the scientific cornerstone of man-made global warming, skeptics have turned to empirical science – actual, repeatable lab experiments.

Geraint Hughes, an independent British researcher, has performed a series of lab experiments that a diligent person may replicate to expose the great climate fraud. His results are a damning defeat for consensus science promoters.

Hughes writes:

“Principia Scientific International (PSI) covered the story of my first lab experiments testing the greenhouse effect here. As promised, I have performed a taller tower test to see if using a “taller column of CO2 gas” induces a greater CO2 back radiant heating effect as so many fake experts have told me is what is needed. The results are astonishingly bad for climate alarmists.

All that happened is that the surface temperature of the bulb is now even lower than before.  Yes that’s right, with the taller tower, more convective effects can occur because there is now less restriction to movement and so more cooling occurs.  Its that simple.

There was no increase in surface temperature of the bulb due to back radiance, to think such things is just stupid.  To tell others such things is a lie.

Every student that has ever paid tuition fees and then been taught climate crisis lies and radiation greenhouse effect twaddle, has been swindled.  They are due full refunds for their degrees in fake science education.  I hope that this puts many useless universities under  severe scrutiny.  They deserve it.  How dare they deceive and defraud on such a widespread basis.

Here are the results of the videos all of which are on a playlist on You-tube.

I recommend Videos 1, 7 & 8, they are the most informative and entertaining.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF66zq1SOYivgEk-j122ZLYOkt_PNpunb

Video 1 – 20 minutes Vacuum – Max Temp 62.3

Video 2 – 40 Minutes Vacuum – Max Temp 67.3

Video 3 – 20 Minutes CO2 smaller Chamber – Max Temp 55.9 (COOLER!)

Video 4 – 40 Minutes CO2 smaller Chamber – Max Temp 61.6 (What a shame!)

Video 5 – 20 Minutes CO2 TALLER CHAMBER – Max Temp 39.5 – WHAT NO WAY IT SUPPOSED TO BE HOTTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I know, maybe if write the number in red it will heat it up a bit?

Video 6 –  40 Minutes CO2 TALLER CHAMBER – Max Temp 42.2 (Oh dear)

Video 7 – This had to be done again, I must have done it wrong – 20 Minutes CO2 Taller Chamber – Max Temp  40.3 (NO!)  You should listen the comments, they are most informative.

Video 8 – 40 Minutes CO2 TALLER CHAMBER (AGAIN!) – Max Temp 42.8 (Oh, double dear.)

Well, well, well.  I am glad so many dissenters told me to use a taller tower, it simply proves them doubly wrong. The challenge to modify my experiment to comport with the shifting argument of climate alarmists has done nothing to advance their claims but has been most helpful to skeptics of the GHE seeking reliable empirical proofs (experimental evidence) to warrant dismissing the nonsense of the greenhouse gas theory claims.”

Direct, easy to demonstrate, repeatable lab tests show the theory of the atmospheric CO2 radiation effect to be UNDENIABLY FALSE. But we shouldn’t be surprised because it was never backed by reliable lab tests to begin with.

And yet there are thousands of brainwashed and gullible souls going out protesting about the “EFFECT THAT NEVER WAS!”  That is what the radiation greenhouse effect amounts to.

And there is more to come. For readers interested in gaining a deeper understanding of the misuse and abuse of science in sustaining the fake greenhouse gas theory of climate change, please order a copy of the new book by Geraint Hughes:

Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science Price: $15.95

Perhaps now climate doomsayers should turn their attentions towards questioning the universities, corporations, fake news media corporations, fake celebrities and governmental organisations which are deceiving and defrauding them.

Review of my Book

Black Dragon: Breaking The Frizzle Frazzle Of The Big Lie Of Climate Change Science

Written by J.A. Cook

 

Book Review:Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science

This isn’t the first book I have reviewed on climate science (see here and here). I had never heard of Geraint Hughes before but upon opening this book for the first time, I know he understands the lies we are being fed and seeks to debunk them one by one.

The first myth Hughes debunks is the nonsense about how a greenhouse actually works. For most young people, like myself, we were taught in school that back radiation heats the greenhouse, that the glass of the greenhouse returns the sun’s heat to the ground thus increasing the temperature however. But this is an unscientific falsehood.

A greenhouse actually works due to convection.

A strong convection current within the greenhouse creates a cycle of warming and cooling. The sun heats the earth which causes the air close to the ground to heat up and rise, it is trapped by the glass where it cools and falls back to the earth where the cycle repeats. Knowing this is the lynchpin of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.

The ‘greenhouse’ analogy completely falls apart already just knowing this, but Hughes continues to pick apart every lie the Alarmists use. The mission of the book is achieved step by step exposing the shocking truth that mainstream science claims about the Greenhouse Gas Theory are pure junk science garbage.

Most books I’ve encountered that focus on climate science are daunting to read. They require an understanding of physics and thermodynamics in order to carefully follow  what we are being told.

Within the first 25 pages of ‘Black Dragon‘ I gleaned more insight into these issues than I found in my five years of senior school studying GCSE Physics.

Hughes makes the task easier by completely breaking down the science and equations he is using so that anyone can understand them. He then explains the physical application of this science and how it in no way relates to the Greenhouse gas Theory – which he repeatedly disproves.

Since I am a college undergraduate currently studying Bioscience – Chemistry, Biology and Psychology, one thing Hughes debunks really fascinated me; Hughes beautifully exposes the ubiquitous Climate Change in a Bottle experiment.

Below is the ridiculous Bill Nye ‘the non-science guy’ video of this:

My old science teacher actually used this experiment to ‘educate’ us about Climate Change, but it completely misses out some glaringly obvious things that would affect the results.

For example, the experiment completely neglects the fact that the density of both Air and Carbon Dioxide are different and the specific heat capacity of both these gases is different, which would affect the rate at which these gases absorb IR.

Now, is this deliberate deception or simply the product of incompetence and misunderstanding among ‘experts’?

For me, the whole Climate Change narrative seems to be a case of the more you look, the less you see. What I mean by this is the more you focus on what you are being told, it reveals itself as completely wrong. Cautious (skeptic) minds need to take a step back and view it objectively – then everything becomes a lot clearer.

The whole section on Venus was interesting to read. Those spouting alarmist nonsense would have us believe Venus’ high temperatures are caused by a runaway greenhouse effect. But Venus’ temperature is due to its natural structure and formation, however, the interesting thing about this section isn’t the debunking myth about Venus but what we learn about Venus itself.

Throughout the book Hughes makes insightful and interesting points with strong evidence to prove why the various (sometimes competing) theories on Greenhouse Gas are incorrect.

One of the key things that will stick with me is that difference between Oxy and CO₂ gas planets, Oxy or oxygen gas planets and Carbon Dioxide gas planets have very different temperatures for one simple reason – how emissive the abundant gas is.

Oxygen is far less emissive than CO₂, therefore Oxy planets have higher temperatures, because of this it is impossible for CO₂ to be the cause of global warming and Climate Change. While this isn’t the most comprehensive book I have read on the subject (it is quite short, just 152 pages), it is one of the most informative.

I highly recommend reading Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science if you have an interest in the subject, or even if you are just curious about the climate ‘hype’ –  it is aimed at non-experts, so anyone should ‘get it.’

Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of the Big Lie of Climate Change Science

Price: $15.95

Format: Trade Paperback

Publisher: Stairway Press

Language: English

Pages: 152

ISBN: 978-1-949267-00-6

Vacuum Chamber Temperature Test Debunks Climate Crisis Claims

Written by Geraint Hughes

We all know the story. Or at least, if you don’t by now you should do.  The whole world is being lied to by the BBC, CNN, EU & UN & the mainstream media about climate change.

They force feed us on a diet about the ‘climate crisis’ postulated on a runaway Radiative Greenhouse Effect. The junk science conjures up CO2 as the trigger for a catastrophic Global Mean Surface Temperature Increase –  in other words man-made Global Warming.

All reminiscent of the Nazi Propaganda machine.  Broadcasting lies on a daily basis, brainwashing enmasse. Here is another way of proving just that.

Readers may recall my previous experiments. I promised you more tests, with thermometers and other gases, involving a bigger tower  I have performed 2 sets of tests comparing the temperature differences between using my Portable Vacuum Chamber device.

Here are the results of the test in table form.

To help understand the tables RT (Room Temperature) indicates the temperature which a free standing digital temperature probe indicated the temperature was in the room.  The starting temperature was the temperature indicated on the digital probe inside the vacuum chamber as I activated the light.

This probe touches the side of the bulb with the tip resting against the inside of the chamber.   This is not perfect and in due course I will get better thermometers but this is sufficient to show that the concept of gaseous back radiant induced heating just doesn’t work.

In each instance the chamber was evacuated first, pressurised and then the light activated.

In the first test I used a Vintage Squirrel Cage bulb and pressurised the gases to 0.5 Bar.  In the second test I used a Spiral Vintage Bulb and pressurised the gases to 0.6 Bar.  The result is similar in both instances.  (My squirrel cage bulb, blew L)

You can see here that in both tests, the Bulb and container surface temperatures were cooler than in the Vacuum than with CO2 added.  In the first test after 20 minutes the Vacuum achieved a maximum temperature of 69.1 and in the second test 63.6.  Co2 on the other hand achieved a maximum temperature of 63.3 and 59.2, which was amazingly, COOLER!

Not only that, but the surface temperature rise was slower, going from 40 to 50 deg took 117 seconds in the first test and 181 seconds in the second test whereas CO2 took 177 Seconds and 247 Seconds respectively.  Wait a minute, I thought CO2 was an insulator!!!!!!  What the heck???????

I am always being told that CO2 not only increases maximum temperatures but causes faster temperature rises, due to the so called “Reduction in the rate of cooling.” Because the so-called back radiance, causes a radiant heat input.  Because CO2 supposedly acts as a layer of insulation.  IT DOES NOT.  It is a medium enabling greater heat transfer away from the warmed surface.

CO2 was never warmer, nor did it warm faster than the pure vacuum.  Its presence acted to cool the surface of the bulb.  DID YOU ACTUALLY EXPECT ANYTHING ELSE?

We are constantly being told that if we had earth in space with no atmosphere or a purely neutral atmosphere, it would experience an average GMST of 255K, but it is actually 288k, due to the presence of greenhouse gases.   Which is just a lie.

This experiment quickly shows such a theory to be completely stupid.  The addition of CO2 gas had no warming effect, only a cooling.  And when I compared Argon to CO2 I found that Argon, resulted in Warmer conditions and faster temperature rises than CO2, despite the fact that Argon is not a “Greenhouse Gas” which is actually fake and misleading terminology.

Conclusion

CO2 does not result in higher GMST  when compared to a Vacuum or Argon, yet we are being told that it does and it does so because of back radiant greenhouse effect, which is clearly complete rubbish.  Climate Crisis is a lie and this can be demonstrated in a growing number of ways.

The links to the playlist of the tests can be found here.

Test 1 Playlist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL_aKmZr4Ac&list=PLF66zq1SOYiveU3cw2KrcOPHQaX0CI6TR

Test 2 Playlist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaxfldJAXY0&list=PLF66zq1SOYitkLVH3VxVsaaT476khpcGR

The time stamps for the temperatures are as below.

1^st Set of Temperature Tests (Squirrel Cage)

 

Vacuum. Room Temperature 24.9. Start Temperature on Container 30 Degree.

Vacuum – 40 Degrees – 25 Seconds.

Vacuum – 50 Degrees – 2 min 22 Seconds. = 142 Seconds. = 117 Seconds Difference.

Vacuum – 60 Degrees – 5 min 41 Seconds. = 341 Seconds. = 199 Seconds Difference.

Vacuum – 69.1 – 20 minutes.

Vacuum – 72.2 Degrees – Maximum after 40 minutes.

 

CO 2 – Room Temperature – 26.1. Start Temperature on Container Thermometer 28.1.

CO 2 – 30 Deg – 1 min 20 seconds. = 80 Seconds.

CO 2 – 40 Deg – 3 min 4 Seconds = 184 Seconds. = 104 Seconds Difference.

CO 2 – 50 Deg – 6 min 1 Seconds = 361 Seconds. = 177 Seconds Difference.

CO 2 – 60 Deg – 13 min 24 Seconds = 804 Seconds. = 443 Seconds Difference.

CO 2 – 63.3 Deg – 20 minutes.

CO 2 – 69 Deg – Maximum after 40 minutes.

 

Argon – Room Temperature – 26.2.  Start Temperature on Container Thermometer 29.0

Argon – 30 Deg – 1 min 10 Seconds. = 70 Seconds.

Argon – 40 Deg – 2 min 55 Seconds. = 175 Seconds. = 105 Seconds Difference.

Argon – 50 Deg – 5 min 30 Seconds. = 330 Seconds. = 155 Seconds Difference.

Argon – 60 Deg – 11 min 37 Seconds. = 697 Seconds. = 367 Seconds Difference.

Argon – 65.5 Deg – 20 minutes.

Argon – 70.3 Deg – Maximum after 40 minutes.

 

2nd Set of Temperature Tests – (Spiral Bulb)

 

Vacuum – 22.7 Room Temperature. 24.9 Start Temperature on Container Degree.

Vacuum – 30 Degrees – 2 min 31 = 151 Seconds

Vacuum – 40 Degrees – 4 min 44 Seconds = 284 Seconds = 133 Seconds Difference

Vacuum – 50 Degrees – 7 min 45 Seconds. = 465 Seconds = 181 Seconds Difference

Vacuum – 60 Degrees – 14 min 27 Seconds. = 867 Seconds = 402 Seconds Difference

Vacuum – 63.6 Degrees – 20 minutes

 

CO 2 – 23.0 Room Temperature – 29.0 Start Temperature on Container Thermometer.

CO 2 – 30 Deg – 2 min 34 seconds = 154 Seconds

CO 2 – 40 Deg – 4 min 58 Seconds = 298 Seconds = 144 Seconds Difference.

CO 2 – 50 Deg – 9 min 05 Seconds = 545 Seconds = 247 Seconds Difference.

CO 2 – 60 Deg –  not attained

CO 2 –  59.2 Deg – 20 minutes.

 

Argon – 23.1 Room Temperature – 31.3 Start Temperature on Container Thermometer

Argon – 40 Deg – 3 min 51 Second = 231 Seconds

Argon – 50 Deg – 7 min 08 Seconds = 428 Seconds = 197 Seconds Difference.

Argon – 60 Deg – 18 min 20 Seconds = 1100 Seconds = 672 Seconds Difference.

Argon – 60.2 Deg – 20 minutes.

Light Recycling Disproves Greenhouse Gas Theory

Written by Geraint Hughes

There are many fake scientists and lying professors in the world. They like to spread the lies that greenhouses work by back-radiation.

They then use this false explanation to further explain that the atmosphere works in the same way, that Greenhouse gases such as Carbon Dioxide, are contributors to this false phenomenon and therefore we must all pay taxes to stop anything which emits CO2.

They even extend this to farm yard animals wanting to stop cows from farting and burping, they emit greenhouses gases, are therefore evil and must go, whatever the cost whatever the effort required, regardless to how fruitless such efforts will be.

These fakers have been beaten in the past, with the simple example of my light filament in a CO2 vacuum chamber, where a tungsten filament clearly dims when CO2 is added to the vacuum chamber, showing that when compared to a vacuum, CO2 does not have any back heating properties, did not slow the rate of cooling from the filament and did not offer forth any “blanket of insulation.”  What happened is that filament simply cooled and dimmed.  Just what else would happen?

Well GHE advocates would have you believe that the temperature would rise, yet it doesn’t.  That experiment proves conclusively that CO2 doesn’t cause back radiance to warm objects, this is one way to show a heat source can’t be warmed by itself, but there are other ways too.  Another way is:-

How Light Recycling Prove Back Radiant Heating to a Heat Source to be Non-sense.

Instead of adding a gas to the lighting filament, an array of parabolic mirrors can be added so that all the energy emitted from the light is reflected right back to it.  This has the effect of increasing the brightness, but not due to an increase in peak temperature of the filament, but due to a difference in emissivity of the tungsten and that of a black body object, which enables reflected light to share the same phase space as newly emitted light.  The peak temperature of the filament is unchanged, despite ALL the energy being reflected back to it.  What happens is the energy absorbed offsets the energy emitted, so that the total output emitted remains the same, but because some of the energy was absorbed there is a reduction in entropy.  This is explained in more detail below.

How Second Law of Thermodynamics can be applied to increase lighting efficiency.

Tungsten filament will emit light if an electric current is passed through them, due the resistance of the filament causing the filament to heat, resistance which increases as the temperature of the filament increases, needing yet more current to get it even hotter and brighter.

If we have two incandescent lights and one of them was cooler than the other, the cooler one will give out less light, all other things being equal.  However, if we were to place a mirror (& or heat mirror) near the hot light to reflect some of the energy to the cooler filament, the cooler filament would warm as it is now in receipt of electromagnetic radiation of a higher intensity from the hotter filament.  As it warms, it would get brighter and we find we have increased the light output without increasing the amount of electricity being used.

It is possible to extend this principle to the original filament itself, this is because a typical tungsten lighting filament is not of uniform temperature across its entire length.  The middle of the filaments tend to be hotter and brighter and the ends cooler.

This is as indicated in this drawing and link below:-

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/31/4/022/meta

The cooler ends of the filament are emitting light and IR at intensity levels relevant to their cooler surface temperature.  This means, that if we carefully placed heat mirrors around the original filament we could re-use the IR energy to send back from the hotter parts of the filament to the cooler parts of the filament, to increase the uniformity of temperature of the filament.

This means that we would increase the temperature of the cooler parts using recycled energy from the hotter parts and in so doing, would increase the brightness of the cooler part of the filament to be more in line with the hotter parts, without increasing the electrical usage.  This gives more light for the same power.  This is how improving light output using heat mirrors work.

There have been unsuccessful attempts at doing this in the past.  An unsuccessful example is the Duro-Test, which failed firstly because its IR heat mirror is reflecting in a globular fashion which is sending heat back not to the centre where the filament is, because to do that you would need parabolic reflectors.  This means that energy is missing the filament.

Also, the reflector is sending heat back not only to the filament but to all the component parts connecting to the filament.  This creates problems as those materials will break and crack and cause the filament to dislodge, which is the problem these bulbs used to suffer from.

Note the error in the websites explanation if you follow the link, sending IR back to a heat source doesn’t cause it to get hotter, the efficiency improvement when using heat mirrors comes from increasing the temperature of the cooler parts of the filament so that they are uniform with the hotter parts, which is the cause of increased brightness related to heat mirrors and incandescent filaments.

Now I have received comments from stupid ignorant people in the past, saying things like, if you covered a light bulb in aluminium foil the resistance of the filament increases meaning that the temperature has risen.  NO!  What is happening is the peak temperature is the same, but the temperature of the cooler parts has risen, this is why the resistance reading has increased YOU DIMWITTED ALARMISTS!

Light Recycling to Increase Brightness

The extracts below in Bold Italic I found on the internet explains light recycling perfectly.

“Imagine one part of the solid angle reflected through the source as shown in Figure 1. Direct light and recycled light are superposed in the same phase space, because they come from the same location. The lamp appears to shine more brightly.”

http://spie.org/newsroom/0463-light-recycling-contributes-to-brightness-in-filament-lamps?SSO=1

“The total radiance of the lamp, however, has not changed. In fact, the amount of light emitted is reduced by the quantity absorbed by the source during the transit of the reflected light.”

“We define the geometrical recycling factor ξ as that fraction of the emitted light from a surface element that returns to the source, with the assumption of Lambertian emittance. In this sense, light recycling is a purely geometrical phenomenon.”

In this study it was also found that the temperature of the filament remained constant between the inside and outside of the coil, yet the brightness of light from the inside of the coil was 30% brighter due this recycling effect.

“The brightness distribution of the filament in operation is shown in a photographic negative in Figure 3. Dark gray means high brightness. Clearly, the brighter parts of the coil, which lie within, are subject to geometrical light recycling. Note, however, that temperatures outside and inside the wire are nearly equal due to high conductivity thinness (0.1mm). Intensified brightness could not result from temperature differences.”

“Our model predicts spectral radiance in good agreement with measurements, as indicated in Figure 4 The light originating from inside the coil is approximately 30% brighter than the light from the surfaces on the outside of the coil. There is a significant dependence of the material properties on wavelength.”

I find this interesting because the study above replicated the findings of a much earlier study conducted in 1917 as indicated below.

“The intensity of the radiation from within the turn of the helix is from 90 to 100 per cent greater than from a similar area on the outside of the turn. This is accounted for on the basis of multiple reflection within the helix. This modifies the quality of the light so that it is redder than the light from the outside of the turn.”

 “There is no indication that the temperature within the helix is higher than on the outside of the turn. A difference in temperature of 200 would be required to account for the observed difference in brightness of 90 per cent, whereas pyrometric, thermal conductivity and other measurements place this temperature difference at less than 5.”

Washington, December 27, 1916

https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/bulletin/14/nbsbulletinv14n1p115_A2b.pdf

Yes, that’s right, light recycling was known about in 1917, and that brightness could be increased without any temperature rise at all.

Yet, for some god-forsaken reason, the outright liars and deceivers of the carbon alarmist movement, like to pretend to the whole world, even themselves, that the smallest slightest irradiance back from a trace gas, will have devastating runaway heating consequences for the entire planet.  In short, they are all full of BS.

And if two examples wasn’t enough, have a third.

“Light recycling involves recirculating part of the emitted light through the source repeatedly and extracting the reflected or transmitted light in the same space phase as the originally emitted light, resulting in a brightness enhancement at a reduced solid angle compared with systems without light recycling.”

https://d-nb.info/982573987/34

This is a very comprehensive study into the effects of light recycling and how to induce it using parabolic reflectors arranged into a carambolic star shape.  The study goes onto explain light recycling in detail.

“The radiance theorem states that it is impossible to increase the radiance of light by means of passive optical devices. This seems intuitively right because the spectral radiance is connected to temperature. Any increase of the radiance would imply an increase in temperature and therefore violate the second law of thermodynamics.”

“Is it possible to increase the brightness of the source higher than the intrinsic brightness via light recycling?”  “The answer is yes! This does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics, because light recycling reduces the irreversible entropy production inherent to the radiation process.”

By this, what is meant is that the total output has reduced slightly remains, but some of the absorbed energy has offset the emitted energy, and brightness has increased due to reflection entering the same phase space as the original energy as shown in figure 1 previously.

This is only possible, because tungsten has a much lower emissivity than 1, if the emissivity of tungsten was 1, there would be no possibility of light recycling and reflected light wouldn’t increase brightness because the amount absorbed would exactly match the amount emitted, total output would remain the same and so nothing would occur.  It would be a waste of time and energy.  However, because tungsten emits with an emissivity less than 1, the difference between black body unity 1 and the emissivity of tungsten at high temperatures at roughly 0.3 means that it is possible to add reflected light, to this 0.3 emissive light, to boost light output (because of the reflective portion) to be more than 0.3.

This diagram illustrates from this same study illustrates this.

And the drawing below explains the process more directly.

“Principle of light recycling. A source (non-black body) emits light in all directions. Assume that part of the light is reflected back to the source with an absorptivity less than unity. Part of the returned light escapes absorption and re-emerges from the source and is superimposed into the same phase space as radiation directly emitted by the source, leading to an increased brightness in this phase space. As a downside of this principle, the total luminous flux is reduced by the amount absorbed.”

The radiation being emitted from the light source after recycling is not only brighter, it is hotter also, which makes perfect sense.  Because if we say, held our hands up to the radiation after it had been reflected back to the heat source, we would be receiving more energy than without the reflection.  If the emitter was a black body, no increase in brightness or temperature of the emitted energy would occur.

In essence the effective emissivity has risen if light recycling is utilised.  This effect would fool an inexperienced person, whom was using a remote IR reader to think the temperature of the filament has increased, it has not, only the radiation at the receiver has increased, due to the reflected portion of light.

So, now we know how light recycling works and how this shows Greenhouse Effect to be a non-sense.  If back radiation caused an increase in temperature, light recycling would be impossible, because the filament would simply heat up and melt, becoming unusable and therefore any increases in light output would not be possible.   The thing is, light recycling is real and the BS talk of the Frizzle Frazzle, twaddle talking Carbon Alarmists, is all lies.

Rotating Sphere in Space – Different Absorptions

This is a graph of different temperatures which can be expected for a rotating sphere at different orbital degrees for differing solar absorptivity.

 

Teaching Radiation Greenhouse Effect is Unethical

We all like to live our lives according to structured sets of rules, sometimes these are rules are hard and fast like laws, such as speed limits and in others they are subjective and more aligned with faith based values which have a strong tendency to stem from religious beliefs.

Without these, helping link and bind us together, society falls apart and everything quickly descends into a hellish free for all, where selfishness and dog eat dog rules reigns and only the strong survive.

One word which sums up the meaning of the positive methods in which we achieve a civilised society is ethics.

Ethics is about the principles we use to judge the right and wrong of our actions.  The careful, methodical study of principles which guide our actions, both as a group and as an individual.

Ethics can be thought of as way of reminding yourself that you should treat people fairly and it is here that Marxism and its intertwined counterpart “Climate Crisis” fail.  The “false teaching” of the radiation greenhouse effect, whereby GHE scholars, schooled in lies, preach pseudo-scientific filth upon their students.

The students don’t know any better and so are defenceless against the preaching being drilled into them.  This isn’t fair to students, their parents or society as a whole, as teenagers get “TOLD” to think that having children is bad as the climate can’t cope, eating meat in dangerous and driving cars disastrous.

Yes that’s right, they “TELL CHILDREN HAVING CHILDREN IS WRONG!”

Just what is a child to think having heard this?  In a world where MOMO videos supposedly encourage children to put knifes to their necks, why on Earth are teachers, teaching such crap?  Just what kind of sick perverts are they?

These false preachers should all be sacked, TODAY!

They teach that the planet “can’t cope” as we have supposedly exceeded by several times the “carrying capacity” of the Earth.  A concept which is best described as phoney baloney.  They get force fed that we only have “12 years” left or we will all die in some doomsday cataclysm of our own making.

And believe me, these victims of fraud fall of it as they aren’t armed with the ammunition to defend themselves and if they even try, they are bullied and vilified into submission and silence.  And that is what the students, children & society is today.  “VICTIMS OF FRAUD!”

This fraud must stop and this perverted sickness must stop and it must stop now.  If this means purging all schools of these fools, sending in riot squads to evict these idiot professors and teachers then so be it.

It is not ethical, to frighten the lives out of children at school, college and university, teaching kids to hate their parents (because they ignored the climate crisis), to hate corporations (because they are evil capitalists).

They go there to learn to become functional members of society, not to be turned into deranged morons afraid of their own farts and breathe, frightened of burger kings whoopers and this crazy belief that animal farmers are scum.  These pupils then have no grounding in science at all, only a feigned knowledge of how things aren’t, rather than a detailed knowledge of how things are.

Lawrence Kohlberg, performed research on studies conducted at Harvard’s Center for Moral Education and he devised the theory of moral development, which occurs as people grow up and he defined this moral growth in six stages.

Stage One – Obedience and punishment.

This is where the person asks themselves “Will I be punished if I do this?”

Sick alarmists have made it that speaking the truth is wrong and that questioning the false authority of fools lying to them is not allowed.  This must stop.

Instead, any and all teachers whom preach “CO2” as the cause of climate change and the falsehoods of the radiation GHE should be given warnings and if they ignore these warnings they should be sacked and fined.

Victims of the climate lies should also be compensated, by the schools, colleges and teachers of these lies.

Anyone with a Climate Science degree, should be awarded a full refund, plus an amount to cover the years of wasted study, where they could have been learning real science.  And another amount should be awarded for emotional damage for the psychological trauma that has been inflicted upon them, with the threat of all impending and immediate destruction of the world & for the unnecessary stress the teachers caused to their students.

We must all remember that actions have consequence’s and if professors choose the fast and easy path of fraud over truth, then they must pay the price of their own actions, as must the institutions that allowed their intellectual rigour diminish and dwindle when deciding climate curriculum.

Stage Two – Favours

They think of what is in it for themselves, asking “You do a favour for me and I’ll do a favour for you.”

This is in a nutshell is Climate Science Peer Review, green subsidy, fake science grant money, carbon pricing trading mechanism, corrupted politicians in league with slimey corporate types whom in turn are in league with gullible protesters.

They are all in together, each promoting their own brand of stupidity and demanding everyone else pays for it without those that pay for it ever getting anything in exchange for their money.  They all promote each other in the process. It is not just an industry it is a sick, twisted and perverted snake oil industry which needs to be brought to a screeching halt.

All Carbon pricing and trading must halt, all carbon taxes abolished, all CO2 emissions controls and laws repealed, all “green” subsidies cut and all grants to fake climate scientists stopped.  This entire fake industry must be made to implode.  If a business can’t survive without government taxes then that business deserves to fail and fail it must.

Stage Three – Social Relationships and Approval.

Here people want to be seen to be a good person, so they seek approval from others.

This explains all the sad virtue signalling, protest marching, banner waving, twitter tweeting idiots.  They all want to be approval of their kin and so they act in a manner which they think will win them approval from their peers.  Germans in Hitlers Nazi Germany, behaved in an identical manner and we all now know how that ended up.

Exactly the same sickness is true of the climate alarmist movement.  They are all so keen to seek approval from their peers, they have succumbed to the comfort blanket of “Group Think” and have totally lost all independent critical thinking faculties.

They are “blind to the gaping hole called reality”, it has simply just, passed them by.

They are in effect, a bunch of brainless green zombies, marching on the mall, attempting to seek out “BRAINS!”  Well, seeing as they all lack them in such abundance, we can see why they would seek out such fleshy organs.

Stage Four – A functioning Society, the law

If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would, so there is an obligation to uphold the law.

If one professor commits climate fraud and one business claims green subsidies and another department gets a climate grant, then why shouldn’t they all?  They are all trying it on.  At the end of the day, someone needs to pay for all this, and those “special fake green elites” have decided that it is the people whom will pay.  YOU! The public will pay and pay big, they sure as hell won’t.

They are the collectors and wannabe God Controllers.  And controlling the weather is well beyond their control.

Examples need to be made of the lying professors.  Solid experimental examples need to be shown to the public in easy to follow and straight forward to understand manner so that everyone, everywhere can see straight through the lies of the twisted professors and the politicians that back them.

The reality which has passed them by, which they have turned their cheek to, for quick applause and a pay rise, will haunt them for the rest of their pathetic history.  Future generations will look back at this period of time, and laugh at how a world full of “Experts” were all just completely wrong.

The Green witchcraftery is like the wizards of old, telling us we can cure a cold with frogs tails and newt eyes & being taken seriously by the peasantry.  That is all these Climate Crisis Con-artists, actually are, a bunch of mad witchdoctors.

Stage Five – Rights and Liberties

Laws are seen as social contract and such contracts are open to criticism, people are not just interested in the rules but what makes a good society.

Having your children told behind your back that children are bad and you are evil “for not solving the climate crisis” can-not possibly be good.

Marching up and down the streets, skipping school, breaking windows and laws alike, because you have some lunatic idea stuck in your head that we can control the weather with stupid taxes, solar panels and wind turbines, that does not make for a good society that makes for an insane one.  The protests will never stop, because bad weather is beyond the control of everyone.

To have one small section of society lord lies over the rest of it and make it feel guilty of its own existence and to enslave it and punish it for having the down-right insolence to breathe, eat meat & live in nice snug warm cosy homes, that is not a good society to live in.

A good society is one which recognise that cheap and affordable homes in a necessity for people to raise families and that it is better that people learn useful skills & are bright useful people is one which performs best and produces the best outcomes for all.

Those that waste their times, energy and resources into solving a problem which doesn’t exist is an idiotic one.  Rather than spending £30,000 on a pointless research grant to some stuck up posh kid, doing a “climate degree” who wants it for their “study on icebergs melting” a policeman should instead be hired and trained to shoot knife wielding maniacs.

Real problems are being ignored and given low priority, which then spiral out of control and false ones are being worshipped as gospel and given the highest priority of all.  A society with carbon pricing and carbon taxes is only a couple of steps away from being the next failed Communist Russian project or screwed up Venezuelan collapsed economy from hell.

You don’t take resources away from people whom earned those resources and know exactly what they are doing and fritter it away by handing it over to people whom didn’t deserve it and only plan on wasting it on themselves.

This is the primary reason why Communists economies fail, they simply run out of everyone else’s money and have no idea how to generate wealth, improve living standards or even how to farm the flipping fields they stole.

Stage Six – Moral Reasoning

This involves imaging what they would do in another’s shoes, if they believed what that other person imagined to be true or right, whether or not it complies with the law.  At this stage an individual acts because it is right, not because it avoids punishment or because it is in their best interests.

Kohlberg, found it difficult to identify individuals who consistently operated at this highest level because it implies great sacrifice and high risk.

People are afraid for their job prospects and of damaging their reputations and scientific careers if they dare to question the “Religion of Climate Change” and so they just go along with it.  The risk is too high for them, the sacrifice too great.

Politicians are scared to say anything that goes against the Communist Group think, or else they get a billion angry tweets and headlined “DENIER!”  Is it right that people should go about their lives in fear of harassment and intimidation if they so much as dare to speak the truth?

Orwellian 1984 just 35 years later?

Operating at this highest level of integrity should be encouraged, not punished.  Backing should be given to those investigating, exposing and destroying the fraud not vilification.  Not allowing society to function at its highest level can only lead to more failures (no money for oil & gas power plants, no wind no tv), more wastage (10,000s of useless plonkers with climate degrees and no jobs on the dole and no electricians but plenty of wiring required), bigger land dumps (How dare you plan to build an incinerator here!!!!!!) more missed opportunities (poured billions into useless Iceberg research and much less into medicines), more homelessness and overcrowding (can’t build here mate it’s against climate rules this town reached its Carbon Allocation), more crime (less coppers more snotty nosed know nothing protestors) and so on and so forth, the amount of examples is endless.

Integrity, Objectivity and with Professional Competence and Due Care

Further to this when it comes to Ethics in Science it is widely regarded that people should act with Integrity, Objectivity and with Professional Competence and Due Care.

INTEGRITY

Big bold writing there, because it’s probably the most important thing which scientists should have next to Scepticism, this is how we arrive at what the truth actually is.  Integrity usually means to be “Straightforward and honest.”

Climate charlatans are not honest and the spurious “it’s just a metaphor” greenhouse effect they teach is not at all straightforward.  GHE science is all twisted and turned out of any recognition to reality.  Integrity, seems to just not exist, its presence is notable by its absence.

Now, here is one such example where Integrity has just been completely foregone.  The following is a pictorial method often used by Fake Green Professors.  Ignoring reality ignoring truth & forcing lies, deceit and propaganda down the throats of their students.

Preachers of the Doomsday cult which produce graphics such as these are doing nothing other than attempting to scare you into submission with the use of pictorial propaganda tools.

Real Scientists have no need for “Scare Tactics” or propaganda tools, yet the fake professors use them all the time.  By cherry picking periods, manipulating variables to serve their agenda and quite often manipulating the very data sets they rely on to give the outputs that they desire.  That isn’t science, that’s just plain old fashioned media hype.

Such pictures above are nothing but fantasy, they are not science and they should be ignored.

For more evidence on how data sets are manipulated you can read this link, it’s very telling isn’t it.   You can see how fake officialdom just brushed away the cold winter of 2013-2014 & 2018 was one of the coldest years you wouldn’t think that looking at the bars would you?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/  Manipulation of data-sets to give a pre-determined outcome, in the sector of climate science, should be made a crime.  It is outright fraud, plain & simple.

If different time periods were used, different results would occur.  If we chose to alter the sensitivity of the bars between temperatures we would end up with entirely blue bands or entirely red ones.  If we used accurate data instead of falsified data we would have a very different outcome altogether with reds and blues all over.  And such manipulation isn’t new, its being going on for decades.  Anyone remember the Climategate scandal https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/04/climatechange-hacked-emails-muir-russell , well, they are still at it.

Objectivity

Objectivity usually means to “not allow bias, conflict of interest or undue influence of others to override professional judgements.”

Doesn’t sound like any fake “green” professor, their supporters, green corporation or high tax espousing politician I ever met or heard of.  I’ll let you be the judge of how Carbon Taxes and Green Grants can affect objectivity.  It’s obvious isn’t it?

Professional Competence

Professional Competence usually means “Maintain professional knowledge and skill at a level required to ensure competence in service can be delivered.”

If someone tells you that a Greenhouse works because of back radiation and then you find out that it works because of convection and that actually radiation from the glass played no part in the temperature of the surface, would that tell you that the person that told you wrongly is competent or incompetent?  https://principia-scientific.org/to-climate-alarmists-how-a-greenhouse-actually-works/

If someone tells you CO2 causes back radiance to cause things it surrounds to get warmer and then you find out it doesn’t, what does that tell you about their competency?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgjT_665T6U&t=3s

If someone tells you that CO2 doesn’t absorb shortwave IR frequencies emitted by an electrical tungsten filament, when actually it does, what does that tell you about their competence?  https://theblackdragonsite.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/co2-does-not-cause-global-warming-demonstration-proof-no-1/

If someone tells you that Venus is hot because of CO2 and the greenhouse effect and then you find out that Venus is littered with active Volcanoes, has 90 Bar air pressure and a thin crust with trillions of tons of melting hot magma bubbling underneath, what does that tell you about their competency?  https://principia-scientific.org/whats-really-going-on-with-venus-two-gas-planets-comparison/

Have you even walked into a shop and ordered a dozen “Ten Bulbs Bulb’s” because, you just love having the brightest living room ever,  https://principia-scientific.org/the-ten-bulbs-bulb/  only to find never in the history of man has such a product ever been in stock?

You can see what the problem is can’t you?  Are these professors really at the height of their game, with the occasional bumbling and all the examples I provided are just me being a pedantic nit-picker?  Are the green professors just stupid?

Are they really, really, really stupid and their bosses just haven’t found them out yet?

Or as is more likely are they just outright lying fraudsters and their bosses are in it because they love the research funds?

All their pretty pictures, all their fancy graphs, all their mis-leading texts books, it’s all just “ONE GREAT BIG LIE!”  And they are all in on it.  They lie to you, then rob you.

And what is more worrying, the fact that they are committing such fraud or the fact they are committing such fraud and not only getting away with it, but taking big chunks of your future & your wealth and the well-being of society along with it?

Not just getting off Scott Free, but being handed great big cheques and fancy awards too……..all at your expense of course.  (And you do know they are laughing at you behind your backs.)

Time to end the Fraud, time to call out all of these false professors, where ever you may find them.  Time to cut all Carbon Taxes, all green subsidies, all CO2 emissions controls and time to start holding the fraudsters to account.

Have you had a climate degree?  Were you taught about any of the basics I outlined above?  Or did you have to find out those things yourself or from reading articles like this.  If so, isn’t your climate degree a waste of paper?

One day, those students whom forked out tens of thousands for worthless degrees, when they instead could have become a mechanic or a plumber, will want compensation for their losses from the Universities that mis-taught them and whom would blame them?

Are corporations due a refund from the governments for being forced to pay false “climate change levies” & other carbon taxes?  I think they are.

I foresee a great storm gathering ahead & it is going to be one where all the fake green professors finally get struck by the thunder and lightning that they all deserve.

Adding a Reflector to a Filament

If you are unsure if the addition of a simple reflector will cause the temperature of the filament to rise and cause it to melt, remember that Philips used to sell vertical projectors which did exactly this, and they did not melt and they were very effective at directing the light to where you wanted it to go.