Bridging The Gap! Greenhouse Gas Theory Fail

Image: Climate Change – The Facts

Related: Evidence – CO2 Is Not A Greenhouse Gas

By Geraint Hughes – Principia Scientific International

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.

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 1st 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.


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.

“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.


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.


Other great stories from Principia Scientific International

Jeremy Corbyn’s Scientist Brother Exposes Climate Fraudsters

Interview With Expert Dr. Ole Humlum On Man-Made Climate Change

Radiant Energy Transfer Surface To Atmosphere

Climate Change Will Cost Us Much Less Than We Think

Climate ‘Science,’ ‘Socialism’ Or ‘Eco-Fascism?’

Is The Man-Made Climate Change Debate Really Over?

Ousted Polar Bear Scientist Deserves Academic Freedom

Should ‘Global Warming’ Fraudsters Spend Time In The Clink?



100% Data Tampering

What kind of a problem would need FAKE and manipulated documentation?

Look at all these “Climate Agreements.” We continue to lose money, prosperity and freedom while the CO2 level continue to increase, when do we say enough??