The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 1: The Failure of IPCC Energy Budgets

Let us consider energy budgets.  If anyone is familiar with my work, then they know about the so-called “P/4 issue”, which indicates that the standard approach of climate science is to average-out the actual real-time power of sunshine by dividing its real power, P, by the number 4.  Now to be sure, the real power of sunshine is this value we call “P”.  It has a numerical value of about 1370 Watts per square meter.  This is the real power of sunshine and it can be converted into a temperature, which has a value of 121 degrees Celsius – boiling hot!  Some of this sunshine power is actually reflected by the Earth though, about 30%, and therefore doesn’t cause any heating; when you factor this in, the real power of sunshine is about 960 W/m2 which is a temperature of about 88oC.

Out of the mathematical convenience of not having to treat the system in real-time, and with the real power of sunshine, climate scientists average the real-time power of sunshine over the entire surface of the Earth at once, so that they can get rid of day and night, and also so that they can treat the Earth as flat, which makes things easier for them in the math.  By spreading the power of sunshine over the entire Earth at once, so that they don’t have to worry about the difference between day and night, the mathematical number required to do this works out to a division of the real incoming power P by the number 4.  It is a result of a geometric math problem of transforming a sphere into a flat plane, which is how climate scientists make the simplifications of the real system to something which is not real but is a convenient “approximation”.

Wait a minute…let’s back up here.  Climate scientists take the real power of sunshine, of P = 960 W/m2, equal to +88o Celscius, but divide the power by the number 4 so that they can make the Earth flat and get rid of day and night – for convenience.  When they do this, they artificially (it is artificial because it is no longer real, and only a mathematical simplification to make the Earth flat) decrease the power of sunshine to 960/4 = 240 W/m2 which is equal to -18oC.

After having taken a real number, and then converted it into something which is not real – the flat Earth approximation – climate scientists then go on to think that the power of sunshine is far too cold to heat anything by itself because it is only as strong as -18oC.  They forget that the simplification they made doesn’t actually correspond with reality, because they’ve taken the real numbers which are actually from reality in the first place, but then mathematically diluted them into very small numbers which aren’t actually found or measured in real-life.

This puts climate scientists into a predicament, of having to figure out why it actually feels so warm under the Sun, and why the temperatures are far above -18oC for most of the planet, particularly on the day-time side where there is actual real sunshine.  Instead of questioning if their approximation of no day and night and a flat Earth with cold sunshine is valid or not, climate scientists instead invent an internal mechanism for the surface and atmosphere to self-amplify their own temperatures.  This mechanism is called the “Greenhouse Effect”, even though this effect doesn’t actually have anything to do with how a real greenhouse works.  They just used the same name for this effect they invented, that makes you think of something else that is warm.  But the climate science “Greenhouse Effect” and a real greenhouse do not actually work the same way in any way at all (see pages 49-51, 68, and 77 in “On the Absence of“).  So they use base sense-perception, imagining something warm, to get you to think that their new effect is the same thing, when it actually isn’t.

To distinguish the effect of what happens in a real greenhouse, versus the effect that climate science invented that isn’t actually the same as a real greenhouse, we will call the climate science version the “Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect”, or “AGHE”, for clarity.

The disparity between this climate-science approximation and the real-world is so great, that climate scientists have to postulate that the atmosphere provides twice as much heating power to warm itself up than they think the cold sunshine does in the first place.  They even publish this result in their “peer-reviewed” journals, such as this paper here (see the last page).

Nowhere else in science can a substance heat itself up without having a source of chemical or nuclear or other energy, but in climate science a gas can warm itself up spontaneously with its own passive energy by warming up an already-warmer ground surface by some mysterious recycling of its own internal energy.  Everybody outside of climate science knows that this is wrong, because you can never get more work (i.e. more heating) out of the energy than what you initially put in and the first time it is used, from the sunshine.  So because this is obviously ridiculous, but climate scientists have never been able to either admit or discover their original mathematical error, they have created terms such as “greenhouse effect”, “back-radiation heating”, “delayed cooling”, and many others, to explain this phantom self-heating process they were accidentally forced to invent.  In fact, they have all sorts of ways of trying to explain their AGHE, as can be seen here, and most of them contradict each other.  This is a result of the AGHE not being based in reality but based on a fictional approximation of a flat earth and cold sunshine, and so by its very nature you can make up almost anything you want to say about it because there is no actual reality-based single way that it exists.

I will end this post with a diagram of a reality-based model I have created which represents the Earth and power of sunshine as it actually exists in reality.  It is somewhat more complex than the flat-earth models which create the AGHE, but, it also corresponds with reality, and so the increased complexity is a good thing.  If you want to read more about why this model was created, before I write Part 2, you can see this paper here: Copernicus Meets the Greenhouse Effect.


This is a model of the real world, with the real power of sunshine. It is more complex than a flat-earth model, but it is also real rather than fictional, which is a much better starting point!



The Fraud of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Part 2: Moving to Reality

In Part 1, we discussed how the idea for the atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) originated in the first place, and that it was due to a simple and needles mathematical error  of diluting the power of sunshine from its real value to a value which is far too cold and doesn’t actually have anything to do with reality.

Many of the climate scientists I have discussed this problem with say that the difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is irrelevant, because the diluted and cold “average” value of sunshine power is simply how much strength it has over an entire day, and so the result, they claim, is the same.

But is this correct?  Well, if you’ve read the “Copernicus” paper, you would understand how obvious it is that unrealistic freezing cold sunshine at -18oC can’t do any of the same things that the real power of sunshine can actually do all by itself.  You can only get the fictional model with -18oC solar input to do the same things which the real model with real sunshine can do by itself, if you invent a fictional heating mechanism to make up the difference.  That was the whole point of inventing the AGHE in the first place!

So, no, a fictional flat Earth model and a real model couldn’t be any more different.  They are different, and so they are different.  They don’t do the same thing.

Other climate scientists, on the other hand, have admitted that the flat Earth/cold Sunshine model isn’t actually real, and that they’re only used for teaching, and that it was silly for me to criticize it.  However, they only admitted that such models were fiction after I had exposed it and forced them into saying so: they weren’t very open about it at all.  Also, why would we use something fictional that doesn’t actually physically exist to teach the exact same thing which is claimed to exist?  Why would we teach non-reality physics as reality?  How incredibly contradictory.  It would be good for these climate scientists to resolve their disagreement with the other bunch who claim that the difference between fiction and reality makes no difference.  The one thing no one can admit, however, is that without the cold-sunshine paradigm, there is no reason to invent the AGHE at all.

So let us have a look at the reality-based model once again and briefly develop an understanding of how reality actually works with the real power of sunshine.  An updated version (it is a work in progress) of the global energy model is shown below.

Reality-based model of the global energy flow which does not require the artificial creation of an AGHE.

What this model represents is an actual schematic of reality, that allows for representation and indication for real-time realistic inputs and outputs, and starts to incorporate internal responses of the system.  The smaller print may be fairly too small to read easily, so the text on the left-hand side of the diagram is copied here:

“Climate is all internal response effects.  Internal cycling of energy (i.e. all weather phenomena including “backradiation”) is not production of new energy or new heat or higher temperatures.  Most climate effects are cooling phenomena, except for the release of latent heat which prevents cooling and keeps things warmer than otherwise.”

That quote is a very important thing to understand.  At the top of the diagram we see the real (physically actual) input power of sunshine, and the shading of the top-hemisphere correctly indicates that this input sunshine gets non-linearly (unevenly) distributed on one side of the planet only.  The correct and physically real mathematical distribution of this energy represents an input temperature on the day-time side of +49oC.  Isn’t that just an incredible difference from the way climate science incorrectly dilutes the power of solar heating to -18oC?

The circle on the top of sphere indicates the to-scale surface area at which the solar heating power is 90% or more of its maximum power of +88oC; it is a huge surface area and is about 30% larger in area than the entire continent of North America.  So there is clearly a vast area that is being heated with quite a lot of power from the real Sun.

With such strong heating and realistic energy input, it now becomes clear that all the weather and all the actions of the climate are natural responses to the actual solar input.  The input temperature is +49oC but the day-time side never actually achieves this temperature because the atmosphere and climate start generating clouds and perform many other cooling functions.  During the night these functions continue to cool, except for latent heat release which prevents cooling and will provide energy output to space without actually allowing a decrease in the temperature.  This is why gardeners mist their plots before a night that is expected to produce frost: the latent heat from the water prevents the temperature from dropping that low.  There are centuries worth of latent heat in the oceans and about 10 days’ worth of such in the atmosphere, and this is what helps keep the system warmer overnight and at the poles.  Eventually, all the energy escapes that comes in, and has a power temperature of about -18oC.

Now here is the really interesting to understand in regards to the error of the AGHE models and climate science: they start at the end, on the right hand side of the diagram, and then try to represent the processes in the reverse order that they actually occur.  That is, they start with the cold energy output, reverse the situation, and model it as the input.  Then, because this artificial input is too cold, they use the weather and climate to generate more heat, which is the reverse of the cooling function they actually provide in reality.  The climate generates heat in this reverse situation, in the exact proportion by which it actually causes cooling in reality!

So isn’t it amazing how the logic of that works out?  Not only is the climate-science understanding of reality based on fiction, and processes invented as fiction to save the appearances, but it ends up that this fiction functions in reverse to actual reality.  The weather and the climate is used to generate more heat and higher temperatures, so that they can match what the real actual input of solar energy is already doing in the first place!  It is just amazing that what a small group of people think of as science can be so incredibly and perfectly backwards from reality.

It gives a whole new meaning to the term “flat-earther’s”!




Newscats – on Patreon or Payoneer ID: 55968469

Cherry May Timbol – Independent Reporter
Contact Cherry at: or
Support Cherry May directly at:


Why do CO2 lag behind temperature?

71% of the earth is covered by ocean, water is a 1000 times denser than air and the mass of the oceans are 360 times that of the atmosphere, small temperature changes in the oceans doesn’t only modulate air temperature, but it also affect the CO2 level according to Henry’s Law.

The reason it is called “Law” is because it has been “proven”!

“.. scientific laws describe phenomena that the scientific community has found to be provably true ..”

That means, the graph proves CO2 do not control temperature, that again proves (Man Made) Global Warming, now called “Climate Change” due to lack of … Warming is – again – debunked!