Another Experiment Proving CO2 is Innocent of Climate Change
Independent British climate researcher, Geraint Hughes, author of ‘Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate,’ has developed yet another experiment to prove CO2 is innocent of climate change.
For those who haven’t yet seen Geraint’s impressive initial experiment, which successfully demonstrated that CO2 does not induce back radiant heating, take a few minutes to view two Youtube videos here and here.
Above, two photographs demonstrating the effects of an exposed light filament where exposed to a vacuum( left) and in a pure CO2 environment (right). As can be seen, the filament exposed only to CO2 is dimmer and cooler.
Speaking to Principia Scientific International, Geraint Hughes explained some of the feedback he has gotten since publicizing his results.
He reveals that some scientists, including professors, have made asinine comments, such as “The filament isn’t emitting IR, that’s why you can put your hand on the bulb in your video,” also, “the base is shiny this is distorting what’s happening.”
Among the worst responses was that the tungsten filament wasn’t emitting infrared radiation!
Hughes laments:
“He must be the only person on the planet who thinks that, but he has PhD so he must be ‘right’. People really are willing to come out with any old clap trap to try and silence the truth.”
The intelligent comments will be addressed in a follow up with modifications to the experiment. These included:
Height of the Chamber
A great number of comments came back saying that the chamber wasn’t tall enough for the back irradiance of CO2 to be induced and that the full height of the atmosphere cannot be represented with these chambers. Such comments are superficial and biased, insofar as the ‘standard experiment’ that ‘proves’ CO2 ‘traps’ heat is merely conducted in small, glass jars. In such a confined experiment (for or against the proposition) it cannot be claimed the results are truly representational of a mechanism occurring in the whole atmosphere.
But this is the point, the entire premise of CO2-driven radiative climate forcing is an unrepresentational demonstration in a lab environment. Thus, the entire narrative of the greenhouse gas effect relies on a claim that applies only to an artificially closed system, not the open-to-space reality of earth’s atmosphere.
Sticking strictly to the parameters of the closed system, laboratory environment, we see that back radiance from the CO2 gas isn’t causing a rise in temperature of the filament because such a thing doesn’t happen, not because of the height of the tower is insufficient.
Hughes told PSI:
“So in an attempt to address this, I will construct a tower which is twice as high as the current chambers, which are 200mm high. My new tower will be 400mm high.”
As any rational skeptic would expect, the result is unsurprising.
“The convective currents will increase, because there is now more space for gas to rise and move and so therefore, the rate of heat loss from the filament will rise, causing lower temperatures.”
This is the same effect of increasing the height of a greenhouse. The taller we make a greenhouse, the cooler it will be inside, as the restriction to convective cooling lessons as air is able to rise higher before coming back down again.
Hughes reports that his endeavors to substantiate his original findings are ongoing:
“Once in possession of a higher chamber I will, of course, record and publish the results and likely as not, the climate cultists will be disappointed. I predict, the taller I make this chamber, the cooler it will be. “
Flippantly, Hughes argues that a 20km high chamber will never be able to reverse what is happening.
Length of Test
Geraint Hughes reports that since posting his initial findings online he has been bombarded from both alarmists and lukewarmists that the time length of the test was too short.
The reasoning seems to be that because the CO2 being used in the experiment comes from a bottle, it is thus cooler than air temperature and so Hughes needs to wait for it to “Warm up.”
“Apparently, if I left the light on all day with the CO2 inside, I will at some point witness the sudden reversal in cooling to warming as back radiance “takes time” to get going before the tipping point suddenly gets reached and “flips” it to warming, ” comes a sarcastic Hughes reply.
For those firmly wedded to their alarmist position, Hughes holds little hope that any modification in his experiment will satisfy their unwillingness to alter their view.
Hughes has even had his filament experiment running all day and no change is detected:
“I can leave it on all day and it NEVER changes. Cynics are kidding themselves if they think this is the “key trick” to this experiment. There is no trick, this is real science, this is real engineering. Stop believing in stupid things, you need to understand that the BBC is full of rubbish.”
Hughes has run his tests for months and the magic “Tipping point” never gets reached, it never warms, it never gets brighter the light filament exposed to a CO2 only atmosphere stays dim (cool).
Pertinently, Hughes suggests that his critics take note that radiation moves at the speed of light – hundreds of thousands of miles per second. Radiation effects are instant. Radiation isn’t something that takes all day to get going, its effects are felt straight away, especially in such a small container. Just imagine on a sunny day walking under a umbrella then back out again, you notice the difference on your skin, straight away. There is no lag.
It was even suggested by an unmoved critic that Hughes should set his experiment as a live feed for at least 24 hours on Youtube. It would possibly count as the most boring video of all time but such is the extent some will go for the cause of empirical science.
Different Gases
Hughes reveals,
“I get this one a lot. Apparently I am being unfair on CO2 by showing that its back irradiant powers don’t exist and that Climate Fraudster are lying. Showing things how they are just isn’t allowed. I need to show other gases too. Ok that’s easy so that is what I will do.”
IA new set of tests will be performed adding the gases, Argon, Nitrogen, Helium and simply with each one see what happens. He will also add thermometers to read temperatures of gases and then repeat the CO2 test with the thermometers also.
Some bright sparks have suggested me that if Hughes adds Argon, the filament will cool and this is the same as adding CO2 and therefore doesn’t show that CO2 doesn’t have back radiant powers. In other words, some people are sure CO2 is the same as Argon, Argon has no IR absorption but CO2 does, so shouldn’t CO2 be different?
Hughes believes others should follow his lead and perform this obvious experiment themselves.
He expects they will learn that adding CO2 cools the filament, adding Argon cools the filament, adding any gas cools the filament.
As a confirmed skeptic of the CO2-radiative greenhouse gas theory Hughes wishes others to realize that CO2 does not have any special back radiant heat inducing powers at all.
“Argon and CO2 have similar properties and so therefore will result in similar temperatures. Argon has no IR powers, yet CO2 does and both will be approximately similar. This will show that CO2 back irradiance as a theory of heat and weather control is obsolete.
I will show which gas results in the warmest temperatures and I will post videos of each, tabulate the data, produce graphs and do several repeat tests of each showing room temperature also.
I am going to swap the tungsten filaments for 1mm thick, instead of normal hairline filaments, because all these different tests will burn out loads of bulbs. I haven’t done that before so it may take me a while to get it all to work. Hopefully I will have all these done within 3 months or so.”
What will the point of all these be, the point is that CO2 does not induce back radiant heating and all the “pathological reasoning” which people put forth as to why back radiant heating didn’t occur is false.
It didn’t occur because the chamber “was too small” it didn’t occur because “It wasn’t given enough time” and it didn’t occur “because you didn’t compare it with other gases”.
The reason it didn’t occur, is because gases just can’t do that. They aren’t real reasons as to why back heating didn’t occur.
As he also shows in his new book, we are being constantly bombarded by the fake news media and twisted education system. “It’s time for the fraud to stop and all those fraudsters to be bought to task.”
As for the book, Black Dragon: Breaking the Frizzle Frazzle of THE BIG LIE of Climate, it includes:
A full and comprehensive summary of the main reasons as to why the human-caused Global Warming theory is false.
Global warming science is taught falsely, right from the start. This false teaching is to convince people to believe in science which isn’t true, so that they willingly make expensive and unnecessary life changes, submit themselves to restrictions on their energy usage and happy to pay extra taxes. Extra taxes to people whom offer nothing in return for the extra expense but hardship.
Black Dragon shines a light upon the major aspects of these falsehoods and illuminates the truth in a manner which can be understood, plainly and simply.
The “twaddle talk” about how greenhouses work by radiation or the lies that atmospheres back-warm planets and the ever ready falsehood that Venus suffers a “Runaway Greenhouse Effect” are all absurd. This book explains why. The deceptive experiments of the left are laid bare and true science is taught. Black Dragon breaks the code of deceit and teaches how greenhouses really work and how to use real thermal radiation equations to quickly approximate temperatures of simple objects in space.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Al Shelton
| #
What I want is a step by step explanation of exactly what happens when a CO2 molecule absorbs IR.
Does it thermalize? If it does, then being a gas it must rise in the earth’s open system.
and also heat up the nearby O2 and N2.
Does the molecule then re-emit IR, and at what frequencies or wavelengths?
How is saturation of CO2 molecules explained? What happens?
The Alarmists are a giant PITA. They keep regurgitating that CO2 traps heat; that heats up the atmosphere and thus more CO2 will cause CAGW.
I can follow the water cycle that cools the earth. The CO2 cycle must be similar [or not?]
Reply
Graeme Mochrie
| #
From my readings over a number of years, it appears that CO2 absorption at 15um is the important wavelength for causing warming. At this wavelength a photon does not have enough energy to move an electron up a level, but does have enough to induce vibration i.e. kinetic energy. 99.9% of this energy is transferred to other molecules in the air causing a slight increase in their vibrational rate and consequently a little convection. This takes place in micro seconds. About one CO2 molecule in a thousand emits a photon which will be emitted at one of the three frequencies at which CO2 absorbs, 15um being one of them. This photon is emitted omnidirectionally and on average this takes about 1ms. Statistically half emitted photons come down and half go up. The effect of a CO2 molecule absorbing a photon is primarily to heat N2 and O2 molecules and to scatter a little radiation. Remember your basic physics, energy of one form can be transformed into energy of another form, in this case electromagnetic energy to kinetic energy.
A 15um photon in the lower atmosphere can travel, at best 10m before being absorbed by CO2. For every 2000 15um photons leaving the earth’s surface1998 will transform into kinetic energy in N2 and O2 molecules, one photon will be emitted in a roughly upward direction and one downward. The question then becomes, what happens to the energy in the N2 and O2? Are they able to emit this to space, or do they transfer to CO2 and it emits? With this model, CO2 in the lower atmosphere acts as a heat pump.
Looking at the solar spectrum at the top of the atmosphere, it appears that there is 15um radiation. CO2 presumably absorbs this, causing some heating, but also blocking some radiative energy.
I have read that the H2O molecule is about thirty time more potent than the CO2 molecule in terms of greenhouse potential. My understanding is that H2O is present in the lower atmosphere at about 2% concentration. CO2 is present at 0.04%. so water must be causing 30x2x25=1500 times the heating that CO2 causes. I have read arguments that because water cycles fast that you should discount it, but surely the important thing is the average. Water evaporation takes massive amounts of energy into the atmosphere on a daily basis, this presumably transfers by vibration to other gases, cooling in the process and condensing and precipitating. Any small increase in insolation due to increased solar activity, change in the earth’s or the sun’s magnetic fields would have much more effect on atmospheric heating than small increases in the concentration of CO2. Human activity may over the period of industrialisation had an influence on mean H2O levels in the atmosphere. We have caused massive deforestation, had huge increases in irrigation, often allowing ground water to evaporate, so there is a possibility that humans have had some influence on atmospheric water, but remember the sun delivers as much energy in 1 minute as humans use in a year, so my bet is on the sun.
If back radiation from CO2 is heating the atmosphere, how is it doing it? The only thing that absorbs 15um radiation is CO2. Back radiation would not make warm air travel to the poles, because it does not have a mechanism to heat the air, just to heat CO2 and nothing else. Without back radiation what is heating the oceans? H2O is very good at absorbing IR, but not 15um radiation. If oceans are definitely warming, where does this heat come from? Presumably the sun.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
There has been a recorded increase in Undersea volcanic activity worldwide over the past ten years or so. https://www.sciencealert.com/this-sonar-image-captures-the-largest-underwater-volcanic-eruption-ever-detected for one such example.
Reply
Jean Lafargue
| #
Within an IR spectroscope, the energy on the test cell is in the order of 160 kW / m2 (120 times the sun power) (1400k color temperature).
Moreover the source is aligned with the sensor which does not see the lateral diffractions and diffractions.
In your case, the filament behaves as an infinite number of ponctual sources emitting by 360 ° too low energy (although enormously higher than that of the earth).
but
THE PLANET IS NOT A SPECTROSCOPE
In a 20W / 12.7 mm diameter spectroscope, the surface of a CO2 molecule receives a radiation of about 140 eV / s at a wavelength of 15 μm (assuming 1 / 100th of the total energy concentrated around 15μm).
From the ground at 15 ° C, the same molecule surface receives radiation of 0.34 eV / s
In the air, a ray propagating in a straight line encounters one molecule of CO2 every 6 mm (and thousands of other).
Within a spectroscope, the radiation at a wavelength of 15 µm is totally absorbed over about fifteen cm. It would therefore take between 5 and 140 eV to excite a molecule of CO2:
=> the 0.34 eV/s (4 photon at 15µm/s) of the ground are totally inoperative and at worst, this energy is absorbed at ground level completely independently to the concentration.
Reply
ANTHONY SIMON
| #
There two fatal flaws in the GHG Hypothesis, 1. It has been warmer in the past and CO2 was 17 times higher and we have had many Ice Ages since then. 2. CO2 is 1/2500th of the atmosphere (0.0004) and the human contribution is 4% or 1/62500th (0.000016), how do you measure an effect of such small influences if they were real, there is an unrecognized sense of Scale.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
The atmosphere was also denser and therefore exerted greater pressure at surface level, in the past. With these higher pressures come higher temperatures, regardless of CO2 content.
Reply
HerbRose
| #
Hi Geraint,
A gas, like the atmosphere, becomes denser as the kinetic energy of its molecules decreases (universal gas law). With increased temperature more molecules (like water) become part of the atmosphere increasing its total weight (atmospheric pressure). The mistaken belief that increased pressure of a gas causes an increase in temperature is because the thermometer was not designed or calibrated to measure kinetic energy of a gas. With an increase in pressure there are more gas molecules (mass) transferring energy to the thermometer and since a thermometer measures the total heat being transferred to it, it registers as higher temperature even though the molecules have less kinetic energy then the less dense (more kinetic energy) molecules higher in the atmosphere.
Herb.
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
Thank you Geraint for providing laboratory backup to my conclusions shown at https://www.climateauditor.com, namely that satellite lower troposphere temperature is independent of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
In my latest page entitled Greenhouse Effect, I hope that I have shown that the theoretical back-radiation from the atmosphere does not provide sufficient energy to cause the predicted 33 degree Kelvin increase in the Earth’s temperature. Further, if there is back-radiation then the Earth should be cooling due to the back-radiation of the Sun’s energy out into space.
Reply
michael Brown
| #
Thanks for this interesting post. This point was raised in a FB discussion group: –
” If the same amount of electrical current goes through these two filaments then the visible energie coming out will be light, the invisible energie will be heat. So the co2 in the chamber must be getting hotter. This is a nice experiment but one of the chambers should be filled with normal air and the other one with higher co2 air. Measure the temperature inside and compare. . In order to replicate the earth’s atmosphere the top must be extensively cooled just like space would absorb heat from above. Then do the same experiment with water vapor, and other “greenhouse gasses. That would be interesting.”.
Reply
michael Brown
| #
Caveat to above suggestion to use air: – ” If you fill with ordinary air, the oxygen will burn out the filament in seconds. try pure nitrogen.”
Reply
michael Brown
| #
Caveat to above suggestion to use air: – ” If you fill with ordinary air, the oxygen will burn out the filament in seconds. try pure nitrogen.”
Reply
John Harrison
| #
As it stands the experiment is poor science as there is insufficient regard for which variables may affect your results and therefore your conclusions. Primarily, as soon as any gas is introduced then heat transfer immediately rises because whereas initially heat transfer was by radiation alone subsequently heat can be transferred by radiation, conduction and convection. Logic would have dictated, therefore, that the introduction of any gas must result in dramatic cooling of the filament. Was that not considered? Nothing can, as yet, be concluded from your interesting experiment until you can precisely compare the behaviour of the filament in carbon dioxide with behaviour in a gas or mixture of gases with identical pressure, density, heat capacity, molecular weight, conductivity, viscosity etc and with zero IR absorption coeffecient. That will be a tricky requirement to meet. Good luck with that.
Reply
Judy
| #
I think that this is the first of a series of experiments which will include other atmospheric gases
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
You can stick your head in the sand all you like, it wont stop CCF (Climate Crisis Fraudsters) from being locked up, which is what will eventually happen when the lie that CO2 induces surface temperature warming is laid bare world wide. This experiment shows that adding CO2 cools the IR heat source. It doesn’t warm it. If you take a rock in space, with a pure vacuum under sunlight it will be its warmest. Add CO2, it will cool, nothing will change that. Because CO2 emits out heat, when you compare a rock with CO2 and a rock without, coolest temperatures will be experienced with the CO2, because it is readily throwing out heat and the NON IR gas just isn’t. (Its retaining it.)
Reply
LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks
| #
We can use particle physics to disprove the CAGW hypothesis quite easily.
The Equipartition Theorem states that energy is shared equally amongst all energetically accessible degrees of freedom of a system. “Energetically accessible” being a proviso that the energy must be sufficient to occupy the quantized energy states of electronic, rotational or vibrational modes for it to be shared in those modes.
All atmospheric molecules, regardless of molecular weight, at the same temperature, will have the same translational mode energy. Lower molecular weight molecules will have a higher speed, whereas higher molecular weight molecules will have a lower speed, but all molecules at the same temperature will have the same translational mode energy.
When the translational mode energy (which we sense as temperature) is equal to or greater than 1/2 the energy necessary to excite the lowest vibrational mode quantum state of CO2, the Equipartition Theorem dictates that energy will flow from translational mode to vibrational mode.
The loss of translational mode (kinetic) energy constitutes a cooling of the atmosphere.
Why 1/2? Because the kinetic energy of two colliding molecules is cumulative, dependent upon the angle of collision. For a 180 degree angle (a head-on collision) and at ~288 K, all atmospheric molecules carry sufficient kinetic energy to excite CO2’s lowest vibrational mode quantum state, CO2{v21(1)}.
This increases the time duration during which CO2 is vibrationally excited, and therefore the probability that CO2 will radiatively de-excite. The resultant radiation which makes its way out to space is, by definition, a cooling process.
[1] apps [dot] dtic [dot] mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/725111.pdf
The absorbed energy in Reaction (33) once again comes from translation. Two reactions of type (33) must occur for every one of the type indicated by Reaction (32) to maintain the CO2 in thermal equilibrium. The removal of energy from the translational modes by Reactions (32) and (33) cools the CO2 molecular system, and, concomitantly, the air.
The only way our planet can shed energy (heat) is via radiative emission to space, therefore logic dictates that the only molecules which can shed energy to space are molecules capable of emitting IR. N2 and O2 (comprising ~99% of the atmosphere), being homonuclear diatomic molecules, cannot effectively emit (nor absorb) IR. Their thermal energy therefore must be transferred to the molecules capable of emitting IR in order to cool off.
CO2 is the prevalent atmospheric coolant in the upper atmosphere, with water vapor playing a larger role below the tropopause.
As CO2 concentration rose, OLR (Outgoing Longwave Radiation) rose by ~6 W/m^2 over the past 62 years, even during the ‘global warming’ hiatus. It’s caused such dramatic cooling (and hence contraction) of the upper atmosphere that NASA is having a problem with space junk not de-orbiting in a timely manner due to atmospheric drag. This exacerbates the unstable space-junk problem It also empirically nullifies the CAGW hypothesis.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Your equating of energy with heat is incorrect. Oxygen absorbs energy in the ultraviolet wavelength eventually absorbing enough energy to split the molecule into atoms. What wavelength a molecule absorbs and radiates depends on the bond length contained in the molecule. It is this vibration across bonds that produces a disturbance in the electric and magnetic fields that is radiated energy.
The atmosphere is not homogeneous but contains layers of the different gases. The colors of the auroras is a result of the gas being excited be the incoming solar particles. CO2 like water is confined to the troposphere. In the thermosphere, where radiation into space occurs, the nitrogen is in a form of atoms not molecules.
Herb
Reply
Graeme Mochrie
| #
Geraint Hughes experiment with the tungsten in either a vacuum tube, or one filled with CO2 seems flawed. It is a bit like the pictures you see of cooling towers producing massive amounts of CO2 which is invisible and not produced by cooling towers which evaporate water. Infra red radiation is invisible to the human eye, we can detect it as heat. The important wavelength to measure is at 15um which CO2 absorbs as fingerprint radiation. What you see is not what is important, he needs to measure 15um radiation.
Another musing. Do we feel heat because the water in our cells absorbs IR radiation? Water does not absorb at 15um, so would we feel that?
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
15 miron? Why 15 micron? CO2 strongest absorption band is 4 micron, which the filament emits in abundance. https://theblackdragonsite.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/co2-does-not-cause-global-warming-demonstration-proof-no-1/
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
You musing about water not absorbing 15 micron is not a musing, its stupidity. Water does absorb at 15 micron, in fact it absorbs quite well. What the hell are you blabbing about?
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Well I am glad we all agreed. CO2 did not act to make it warmer, only a cooling resulted. Well done people. 😀
Reply
James McGinn
| #
GH:
Well I am glad we all agreed. CO2 did not act to make it warmer, only a cooling resulted. Well done people.
JMcG:
By its very nature academia ties researchers thinking into knots and weeds out anybody whose thinking cannot be thusly tied. Only when academia can come to a consensus that there is a problem or mystery is there any possibility that a researcher can work on it. But that is rare in that most of the time academia refuses to consider that there is a problem or mystery.
Physics Stack Exchange Fail: Ineptitude of Consensus Science
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16459
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
photon 1
| #
There will never be a solution to this until the CAGW hysteria is recognized as a mass hysteria movement. The fraud comes from the hysteria, not the other way around. We need to investigate the causes of hysteria, which is backed up anxiety from issues it is taboo to talk about.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Photon 1 (There is no such thing as a photon)
The hysteria is a product of politician’s greed an incompetence. To hide the fact that they fail miserably at doing what they should be doing they invent imaginary crises to distract the public from real problems. By pouring money at these imaginary problems they give an impression they are doing something. (other than wasting money.) By using tax money they give grants to people (they are not scientists. A scientist would never manipulate data to support his beliefs) who will manufacture evidence to support the fictitious crises and in the process get money from people to dumb to know they are being conned..The fraud is fueling the hysteria.
The coming grand solar minimum will show people that there is no global warming and they have been lied to. When the minimum last happened the king of France lost his head.
Herb
Reply