Niblet No 6 – NO ‘greenhouse effect’ exists
Ranging from literally exploding greenhouses, leaking wire-ways, bubbling compressors and melting glue on the brackets. It was like the Gods were against me, if it could go wrong it did. And I did all this at the same time as moving into and renovating a new home I have moved into. Anyhow I have now actually managed to perform two very straightforward comparisons.
Video of experiment below:
The comparisons being the difference in maximum temperature of a flat plate, in a vacuum chamber compared with the same flat plate with a mini-greenhouse on it. (I have had to substitute an empty, label less upside-down large Coffee Jar for the greenhouse as the ones I made all exploded when I drilled holes in them. As did several glass jars.) This comparison being made to see if the one with the glass greenhouse on it, is cooler or warmer than the flat plate on its own.
If RGHE fake theory was to be believed, the back radiance from the greenhouse would make the plate warmer than if it was on its own. And yet again, low and behold, my predictions came true, it wasn’t. What happened was it was cooler, as you can see from the results below. In both experiment, warming was conducted for 1 hour, followed by cooling for 30 minutes then warming again.
(Although for experiment 2 with the jar, I conducted it for 1 hour 10 minutes to give extra chance, of back radiant warming, didn’t occur.) I repeated this 3 times.
Each experiment was conducted with the plate in the same location as the brackets are super-heat resistant glued to the inside of the Vacuum Chamber. The heating element is a 100 Watt
Reflective bulb with additional reflection by wrapping it in aluminium foil.
Experiment 2 – Black Flat Plate with Greenhouse (Jar)
Here in the warming phase I allowed for an extra 10 minutes, to give the jar and plate extra fighting chance, because I know the real physics occurring behind this arrangement. I know all the nay sayer’s would say “give it more time, give it more time, it will happen watch it will happen.”
So I gave it more time and it doesn’t happen. If I leave it all day, IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.
You can see the maximum temperature reached float around 272 to 273 degrees. Much less than the 290+ with the plate on its own. The extra mass from the glass jar, meant it didn’t cool down quite as fast, but that was of no-consequence to maximum temperature attained on re-heating after 30 minutes of cooling.
What is happening is simple, the area of absorption had remained constant, the heat input had remained constant, but the area of emission has increased.
The emission is now that of the plate and the jar, therefore only cooler maximum conditions can exist. The plate is cooler WITH the jar in a full vacuum than it is WITH OUT IT.
Radiation greenhouse effect is a lie.
Greenhouses are only warmer in real conditions because of “RESTRICTED CONVECTIVE CURRENTS” nothing else.
Not back radiance.
This test proves that convincingly and this test can be repeated and conducted anywhere. I can repeat this at will. I can drop a you-tube video of a repeat of this any day I like and I will do so at some point of my own convenience. Radiation Greenhouse Effect is a lie, as is climate crisis, global warming is a non-sense, all CO2 taxes are a scam.
Someone tells you otherwise, you know they are lying. All the tall tail teachers tell of Climate Crisis is just that, “a fairy tale” (or “fairy-mare” as this magical effect is going to supposedly be the doom of us all) nothing else. Pure fantasy.
This experiment, can and will be improved upon, but there is no getting away from the foundation of truth that this experiment demonstrates. We are all being lied to about RGHE,
The climate crisis IS A SCAM!
Header image: Janata Weekly
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Max Polo
| #
Thanks Geraint, great job. Simple, repeatable experimental evidence, destroys a dumb mathematical artifact that the GHE rests upon.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Nice work Geraint .. just as you and I have discussed in detail in the past! .. way to go!
Reply
Barry
| #
As I am not educated maybe some one can help me with wether or not co2 in the atmosphere actually speeds up cooling as it is a radiative gas,could it not act like a better conductor. Much the same way that wetting insulation makes it a better conductor
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Makes perfect sense. As the gas is more emissive than the gasses which surround it, its presence can only act to cool as it loses heat a greater rate. Another live example i have of this is my light filament experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgjT_665T6U
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks Geraint
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
My example is as follows:
Get a tub full of dry ice [frozen CO2]
Let that represent the atmosphere for my test.
Now place a can of beer into the middle of the tub of dry ice.
That can of beer represents Planet Earth.
The UN IPCC says that CO2 “traps” heat and back radiates it to warm the earth.
Well then, according to RGHE my tub of 100% CO2 should really trap the heat from my beer and make my beer hotter and hotter, quicker and quicker.
NOPE! My beer is ultra cold.
As Geraint has proven, the RGHE is a lie.
My little test is more proof IMO.
Thank Geraint for you effort and proof.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
Ha! I have to discharge a dozen fire extinguishers at work next week. I was going to simply make a small CO2 snowman but now you’ve inspired me to involve beer.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
Excellent, Mr Hughes, just excellent. Is there any chance you could make a to-scale diagram and script of your methodology?
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Sure, will do
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
HI Geraint and other PSI Readers,
After study of what you wrote, I have to assume you have placed some temperature measuring sensor on the flat plate and connected to outside the vacuum system via sealed wires to the data logger. Is this assumption correct?
“We can see from the above results that starting at 20°C after 1 hour maximum temperature of 288.7 is achieved in the first test. With 30 minutes of cooling it drops down to 34.3, then warming back up to 289.5 as a maximum and on 3rd and final test it rises up to 290.2°C. The warming and cooling pattern of each test is virtually identical.”
I agree with your report about Exp. 1 as you described it. However, the ambient temperature of your laboratory was ABOUT 21C at the beginning of both experiments. However the minimum temperature you report for the Exp. 2 after cooling is ABOUT 55C.
You wrote: “Here in the warming phase I allowed for an extra 10 minutes, to give the jar and plate extra fighting chance, because I know the real physics occurring behind this arrangement. I know all the nay sayer’s would say “give it more time, give it more time, it will happen watch it will happen”. So I gave it more time and it doesn’t happen. If I leave it all day, IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.” Whereas as in Exp 1 it did cool to 34C because the evacuated SYSTEM was still being cooled by the ambient air whose temperature was still probably 21C when you began heating for the next test.
And without any reported temperatures support your claim, you want a Reader (me) to accept that the ambient air of your laboratory will not continue to cool the system below 55C if you wait “all day”???
While the system of the Exp. 2 will cool more slowly because of its greater mass, it also will cool more slowly because its maximum temperature is never is great as that of Exp. 1 and its rate of emission is proportional to the 4th power of its MAXIMUM KELVIN (273 + XC) temperature. Of course, because the system temperature of Exp. 1 cools faster than that of Exp. 2, there will come a point during the cooling cycle when the cooling rate (due to the system’s temperature) will become greater than that of Exp. 1; however there is still the factor of the greater mass of Exp. 2.
Finally, I believe that no LABORATORY SYSTEM has any relationship to a NATURAL SYSTEM. For until there is are reproducible measurements of the NATURAL ATMOSPHERE’S temperature and dew point temperature (measured at the same ‘point’ and time) the shows the dew point temperature is less than that of the temperature of the air, it is a SCIENTIFIC LAW the atmosphere’s temperature cannot be less than that measured. And a well known prediction of the idea of the GHE is that the measured air temperature would be about 33C (58F) less than that measured if there were no greenhouses gases in the atmospher.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Jerry. Stop rambling. “If I left it all day” referred to if I left the HEATING ON ALL DAY. That point is obvious. If i do that, it NEVER gets warmer with the jar and plate than the plate on its own.
RGHE is a lie, end of.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geraint,
You are correct that I did not see that you did write that you left the heating on all day. And yes I RAMBLE because Louis Elzevir, in his preface to a reader of Galileo’s book—Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, wrote (as translated by Crew and de Salvio, 1914): “Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.”
You have not accurately defined (described) your experimental apparatus for your readers. Specifically, where is the temperature being measured? We have to assume it is by some ‘sensor’ which is in physical contact with the flat plate at the center of a square flat plate. Square because we see light being reflected from the inside surface, above the flat plate, of the cylinder of your vacuum chamber. We have to assume that the square flat plate is necessary to support the glass coffee jar which a piece of black construction paper, cut to the inside diameter of the cylinder would better block the visible radiation of the ‘heat’ bulb and be warmed by both the visible and IR radiations of the heat bulb. I can see no reason why the black construction paper cannot be lain over the flat plate. It would seem it would not be any more difficult to modify your apparatus in this way than placing the glass coffee jar on the flat plate. And then do experiments 3 and 4. Which is the only way to observe if this modification changes the results.
However to accurately define the system of your apparatus we must acknowledge that these radiations must first pass through the thin glass of the heat bulb. Which we can determine by touch (immediately after the power to the bulb is turned off) if it has been warmed. For if it is warmed, its outer surface becomes a large surface emitting IR radiation to the flat plate and black construction paper. And I would suggest that the paper be placed the temperature sensor which remains in direct contact with the flat plate.
Now given the thin glass of the heat bulb, I see my assumption that wall of the cylinder does not necessary need to be thick (which I did not accurately define). But you know how thick the wall of the cylinder actually is and should accurately define for us as well as its transparency to IR radiation.
However, the greatest factor you are ignoring and I did for some time, is there is no perfect vacuum (zero gas molecules) regardless of what your vacuum gauge seems to indicate. Hence, some heat conduction (transfer) by gas molecules still exists in combination with heat transfer via IR radiation.
However, to better define the actual results of your experiments for us, you really need to measure the temperatures of the outside surfaces of your apparatus instead of just touching these surfaces with a finger. For the IR emission by these outside surfaces and the warming of the laboratory air via contact is the energy out of the radiation balance which your all day heating proves to exist.
Yes, I ramble because I have done many experiments with reproducible results and I know how much careful detail is necessary to control in order for another experimenter to produce the same result that I observed.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Hi Jerry I think J Postma has covered the avg temp of the earth rather well as the atmosphere and the surface are not separate but operate as one that the avg temp has to be found somewhere in the atmosphere and indeed about 5 or 6 km up it is -18 just like it is suppose to be according to calculations which are far above my pay grade. And yes it is extremely difficult to configure something as complex as the world we live in. But I do think an experiment like the one provided here should show some signs but once again the back radiation theory just doesn’t hold a candle to actual science
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry,
Many will not agree when I claim there is no such thing as an average temperature of any period longer than an hour. And even then the maximum-minimum temperature of the previous hour better defines the previous hour than its average temperature does.
If you doubt what I claim, please consider the data reported at this link (https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Barry
| #
Ya Jerry I think to much is made out of what the exact temp is suppose to be,would any of us really know if on average it was two degrees warmer or cooler that pretty much happens over the coarse of an hour or two everyday
Cheers Barry
Reply
Andy
| #
Nice one Geraint 🙂
Reply
yougottaloveme
| #
Good job Geraint.
Since fact and feeling are too easily interchanged among the warmie herd, I think we can confidently project that they will switch at the drop of a hat…actually the drop of a few degrees… from CO2 caused anthropogenic global warming to CO2 caused global cooling, hoisting the cooling properties of CO2 as their battle standard. This will be tougher to combat, since of course CO2 is used in refrigeration systems. So whadowedo?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geraint,
You proved that CO2 does not increase temperature with your first experiment. The subsequent experiments are an attempt to answer the objections of the true believers. However many you do, it will not matter, because you cannot use science or reason with people who do not think.
The effect of CO2 on temperature and energy in the atmosphere is completely obliterated by the effect of water carrying energy from the surface into the atmosphere.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Geraint,
Good job! But I worry about one thing:
You know the GHE people could say this experiment needs to be conducted in space.
The container has a wall. Your room has a wall. Air outside can be a wall.
Equilbrium can be reached with the massive surroundings.
It’s the reason this works:
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/
There is no steep conductive gradient due to this. Same goes for gradients through radiative plates.
Only a space experiment will settle this.
The GHE doesn’t work, because the atmo doesn’t have just a few layers … but possibly ?thousands?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Zoe and hopefully other PSI Readers,
I came to my computer this morning to admit I had not properly analyzed Geraint’s excellent laboratory experiments which still have little to nothing to do with the NATURAL HEAT BALAN CE SYSTEM. And I find that Zoe basically had identifies the basic mechanisms of heat (energy) transfer. Except there still seems to be an argument.
Geraint’s laboratory experiment is far simpler than the EARTH’S NATURAL SYSTEM because he has reproducibly produced reproducible results.
I am going to analyze Geraint’s experiment but this comment is to acknowledge that Zoe was basically there before I. GOOO WORK ZOE!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geraint, Zoe, and other PSI Readers,
Galileo’s break through in proving that the EARTH DID NOT STANDSTILL was the INVENTION of the TELESCOPE. Which he used to see that which could not be seen before.
So, first I state the inexpensive IR THERMOMETER has been INVENTED and it should be used to SIMPLY (BETTER) UNDERSTAND (EXPLAIN) Geraint’s EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.
We can assume by creating a vacuum inside his large transparent (to visible radiation but not too IR radiation) tube, which I assume to be THICK GLASS, eliminates (or nearly so) any transfer of heat (energy) VIA GASEOUS MOLECULES from the heat bulb and other matter inside the tube to the inside surface of the SYSTEM’S OUTSIDE GLASS TUBE.
Where Zoe explains the heat (energy) must to transferred the outside surface to the thick tube via THERMAL CONDUCTION which requires a TEMPERATURE GRADIENT.
Now Zoe recognizes that the heat (energy) must removed from the tube’s outside surface via ThERMAL CONDUCTION of the laboratory air and the THERMAL EMISSION of IR RADIATION according to the tubes outside temperature.
This is where one points the IR Thermometer at the outside of the thick glass tube. And then point it at the walls of the laboratory. And maybe looks at a thermometer which is conventionally measuring the temperature of the laboratory’s air.
If Geraint would again do his experiments using a IR Thermometer to monitor the temperature of the thick glass tube and the temperature of the laboratory walls, the mechanism of the transfer of heat (energy) via IR radiation would become simply obvious.
Have a good day, Jerry Hi Geraint, Zoe, and other PSI Readers,
Galileo’s break through in proving that the EARTH DID NOT STANDSTILL was the INVENTION of the TELESCOPE. Which he used to see that which could not be seen before.
So, first I state the inexpensive IR THERMOMETER has been INVENTED and it should be used to SIMPLY (BETTER) UNDERSTAND (EXPLAIN) Geraint’s EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.
We can assume by creating a vacuum inside his large transparent (to visible radiation but not too IR radiation) tube, which I assume to be THICK GLASS, eliminates (or nearly so) any transfer of heat (energy) VIA GASEOUS MOLECULES from the heat bulb and other matter inside the tube to the inside surface of the SYSTEM’S OUTSIDE GLASS TUBE.
Where Zoe explains the heat (energy) must to transferred the outside surface to the thick tube via THERMAL CONDUCTION which requires a TEMPERATURE GRADIENT.
Now Zoe recognizes that the heat (energy) must removed from the tube’s outside surface via ThERMAL CONDUCTION of the laboratory air and the THERMAL EMISSION of IR RADIATION according to the tubes outside temperature.
This is where one points the IR Thermometer at the outside of the thick glass tube. And then point it at the walls of the laboratory. And maybe looks at a thermometer which is conventionally measuring the temperature of the laboratory’s air.
If Geraint would again do his experiments using a IR Thermometer to monitor the temperature of the thick glass tube and the temperature of the laboratory walls, the mechanism of the transfer of heat (energy) via IR radiation would become simply obvious.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry Krause
| #
Hi YOU ALL,
As usual this old guy made a mistake!!!!
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Zoe.
I do not need space.
I need a black surface, cooled by refrigeration. Hmmm, the things i have in mind.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
So you get it.
Ooh that is a clever solution!
Reply
Karma Singh
| #
Excuse my “ignorance” but what, exactly does RGHE mean?
I do find this American habit of creating “in house” acronyms at random totally reprehensible as it ensures that most will not understand them.
Blessed be
Karma Singh
Reply
Max Polo
| #
RGHE = radiative greenhouse effect = what does not exist in nature but only in climatologists mind
Reply
Shawn Marshall
| #
Would anyone know how to send this experiment to prof. Will Happer for comment since he inexplicably ‘believes’ in an RGHE effect although he claims it is saturated and that increasing CO2 is of no concern.
Reply
Barry
| #
There are some comments here criticizing the methodology and as we all know any and all experiments should be approached with healthy scepticism. But that said I think what Geraints experiment shows more than anything how easily the agw crowd with literally hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars available should be able to come up with a simple experiment to prove their point but none have. I applaud Geraints time and money spent to help our cause,if we fail to convince the masses we are doomed to the dark ages once again.
Cheers Barry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Barry and hopefully other PSI Readers,
I am not going to quote any you, Barry, said. Instead I am going to quote a statement of Einsteins and request that YOU ALL ponder it. For I question if many RESEARCH SCIENTIST actually understand the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE of SCIENCE to which he is referring.
“NO AMOUNT OF EXPERIMENTATION CAN EVER PROVE ME RIGHT; A SINGLE EXPERIMENT6 CAN PROVE ME WRONG.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
E. Schaffer
| #
You are absolutely right when saying there is no “back radiation” caused GHE. And there is no need to run any experiments to see that, proper logical thinking suffices. “Back radiation” like any radiation, is a function of temperature according to S-B. In this instance it is a function of the temperature of the atmosphere. The temperature of the atmosphere however is interconnected to the surface temperature, which means eventually the “back radiation” theory explains temperature with temperature. It is pure tautology.
https://greenhousedefect.com/2/the-back-radiation-idiocy
However, that does not mean there would be no “GHE”, nor that it would be portayed accurately in its nature of size.
https://greenhousedefect.com/basic-greenhouse-defects/the-beast-under-the-bed-part-2
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi E,
The N2 sand O2 in the atmosphere are heated by absorbing uv radiation. The surface of the Earth is heated by the absorption of visible light. The temperature, as measured by a thermometer, is completely inaccurate in a gas (Universal Gas Law) and the molecules in the atmosphere have more energy (greater velocity) than those on the Earth’s surface..According to the conservation of momentum, they are also adding energy (heating) the Earth. There is no GHE only the flow of energy from greater to lesser.
Herb
Reply
Barry
| #
This is the perfect experiment for NASA on the space station except we can’t trust their observations. Geraint could send them all his equipment minus the vacuum chamber,they have 24 hour sun and plenty of space
Reply
Rosco
| #
About as believable as the last piece of pseudoscience you wrote about – “NASA’s Great Peak Fake Swindle”.
There is no fraud in plotting emissions data in any of the variable domains using Planck’s equation.
The fact that the point of peak emissions shifts from one variable to another is mathematical fact – not fraud as you have repeatedly alleged.
So I’ll believe you haven’t established anything until you show you understand even the basics of blackbody radiative physics.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Rosco, it was clearly too hard for you to comprehend, thats ok, i get it, your a bit slow.
Reply
Alan
| #
Geraint, Part 1 of this series is confusing. I agree with the problems caused by averaging but a flat plate in space which has no relevance to the earth’s climate. The NASA reference you quote is about space craft, and it states that they assume that the plate is only radiating back into space and that is the assumption for their temperature calculation. For reasons I fail to understand you assume the plate receives radiation from one direction and emits it only from the other. This has created confusion and hence the pointless arguments about the temperature and your unacceptable insults. Use science, not insults. You will not convince anybody about your ideas when you insult them, which is a pity and especially when you use an example completely unrelated to understanding the climatic system and when you have put a huge effort into your studies.
My belief is that experiments should be either on the system being studied or use laboratory equipment which represents the system being studied. We cannot carry out experiments on the earth’s climate and we cannot create a representative laboratory setup. Mathematical models are not experiments. They are only as good as the equations, assumptions and data. Your experiments unfortunately are not in any way representative of the earth’s atmosphere, and although I am sure your conclusions are correct, they are not going to change any minds about what is happening in the climate system.
In Part 4, you make the statement “just like conduction and convection can only act to cool the Earth”. That is not correct since the earth can only lose heat to space by radiation. The comments on other experiments involving candles are far better explanations about why there is no greenhouse effect.
In Part 5 somebody made the comment that your experiment “is a demonstration of something we have always known, vacuums prevent heat transfer while gases, our atmosphere, enable it.” I wonder how this person thinks that the sun’s energy gets to earth.
You have focused on the concept of back radiation, but radiation is electromagnetic energy, not thermal energy and this is the mistake the global warmists fail (or refuse) to recognise. Electromagnetic energy will only cause heating when it obeys the laws of thermodynamics, which is heat is only transferred when the radiation is from a hot to a cold body. The earth surface radiates to the atmosphere (hot to cold) transferring heat. The atmosphere radiates to back to earth, but it does not transfer heat.
There is a far simpler example than your experiments and that is a thermos flask. Radiation is effectively trapped but it causes no further heating of the contents. That is all your experiments show once equilibrium is reached.
It is far better to look critically at the various experiments that have been used to “prove” the greenhouse effect. The earliest is the work of John Tyndall, which is regularly quoted by the alarmists. He concluded that heat was trapped by greenhouse gases in the tube, but this would mean the temperature in the tube increased. Why didn’t he put a thermometer in the tube? Why has nobody replicated the experiment with a thermometer in the tube? I suspect that they have, and they found that the greenhouse gases did not trap heat. The Iain Stewart glass tube and candle experiment referenced in a comment is a modern interpretation using a thermal imaging camera. These cameras are unable to detect air temperature and so the candle was seen when the tube contained air. The camera does detect carbon dioxide and so it detected the CO2 when it was put in the tube and the candle could not be seen. Prof Andrea Sella did an experiment with gun cotton showing that when in a beam of light, it caught fire, then when CO2 was placed in the beam it did not light. Sella used a magnifying glass to concentrate the light which is why the experiment worked with air. CO2 scatters the light and so the magnifying glass could not focus it. Last Christmas the Royal Institution Lectures featured yet another candle and tube experiment using an IR thermometer to measure the temperature of the candle through the tube with air and then with methane. Rather than talking about the temperature of the gas in the tube they claimed the candle temperature was different with different gasses in the tube. Such nonsense is astonishing, and they get away with it.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
You write a lot of trash, you need to learn to stop doing that.
It very quickly and simply shows RGHE to be a lie. End of.
Reply
Alan
| #
Most this series unfortunately have comments closed. I have Geraint’s book which had had not read. I am astonished to find the plate in space calculation in the book which calculates the temperature as 331K, which in this series Geraint claims is wrong and it should be 394K as calculated by NASA. Attention to detail matters. In one case the plate is radiating from both side, but NASA assumes the plate is insulated on one side and not emitting radiation. This series is best deleted in my view.
Reply