CO2 Is An Insulation Blanket Right? Wrong!!!
If you are one of those brainless people that goes around spouting the apostle of Climate Crisis, you are about to find out why you are just an unbelievable hair brained buffoon. You are not clever, you are not making pertinent points, you are not being responsible, what you are is an idiot, a complete clown. Words don’t do justice to how ignorant you are.
Every day we are being told CO2 is an insulation blanket, so I decided to test out that theory to see if it holds any water, it doesn’t. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/82142/global-patterns-of-carbon-dioxide Like the complete trash written on that page on NASA, where it quite clearly spouts the complete and total nonsense that “Greenhouse gases act as insulation!” You will see right here and now, that is does not.
In fact it is quite the opposite.
So I performed several tests, the results of which are below.
Test 1 – Flat Black Plate in A Vacuum
| TEST 1 | |
| Duration | Temperature °C |
| 00:00:00 | 20.30 |
| 00:05:00 | 178.6 |
| 00:10:00 | 230.2 |
| 00:15:00 | 261.9 |
| 00:20:00 | 271.2 |
| 00:25:00 | 274.3 |
| 00:30:00 | 282.3 |
| 00:35:00 | 281.9 |
| 00:40:00 | 284.9 |
| 00:45:00 | 282.2 |
| 00:50:00 | 286.4 |
| 00:55:00 | 288.1 |
| 01:00:00 | 288.7 |
These are the results from the 1st test performed in https://principia-scientific.com/niblet-no-6-no-greenhouse-effect-exists/ and I used the same rig and equipment in all my tests.
Test 2 – Flat Black Plate in A Vacuum with Insulation Blanket
Here I have the exact same arrangement, with the flat plate but this time with 100mm thick 100kg/m3 Density Rockwool on it, as so.
| TEST 2 | |
| Duration | Temperature °C |
| 00:00:00 | 20.30 |
| 00:05:00 | 166.30 |
| 00:10:00 | 258.20 |
| 00:15:00 | 302.90 |
| 00:20:00 | 326.60 |
| 00:25:00 | 340.00 |
| 00:30:00 | 348.00 |
| 00:35:00 | 353.10 |
| 00:40:00 | 356.00 |
| 00:45:00 | 357.50 |
| 00:50:00 | 358.40 |
| 00:55:00 | 358.80 |
| 01:00:00 | 359.00 |
You will see comparing the above to the 1st test, in the first few minutes it warms up more slowly, but then surpasses the plate on its own and achieves far higher steady state temperatures.
In performing this test I also tested the validity of this calculation on NASA, which I referred to in previous articles. NASA clearly got it wrong, https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/estimating_the_temperature.htm. The temperature of a flat plate in space, is 331k as stated in my book.
Phew, I knew my book was right, I used several sources from several space agencies in writing it. I knew NASA must have made an error on their web page, something they do quite a lot these days it seems. The temperature of A FULLY AND PERFECTLY INSULATED FLAT PLATE, something the entire page of calculation doesn’t even refer to, in space is 394K, again as stipulated in my book.
This does mean the diagram in Niblet 1 can now be safely ignored as the NASA calculation of a flat plat, is now proven wrong, so therefore the premise I built upon that wrong calculation, in that thought box article must also be wrong.
Made me feel a bit silly relying on wrong information from NASA, I always thought they was reliable, well no more! I know them to be an entirely UNRELIABLE source of information.
How embarrassed will Biden feel when he finds out his entire policy is based on total make believe rubbish? The only thing those phonies can be relied upon for these day’s is to spout Climate Claptrap, nothing else.
However, as I will demonstrate in a later article, averaging is still wrong and can-not be used reliably to determine temperature of objects. Averaging is nothing but a 1st stage estimate and can be very wrong indeed. Back to the task at hand.
So we see that without insulation the maximum steady state temperature of a flat plate is 288°C degrees, but with insulation it rockets up to 359 °C.
So does CO2 act like the insulation? Bets anyone? Have NASA MUCKED IT UP AGAIN?
Well yes actually, they have.
Test 3 – Flat Black Plate with CO2 added to Column. (1 BAR)
CO 2 is invisible, so here is a picture of the canister connected up to the rig so you can see.
| TEST 1 | TEST 2 | ||||
| Duration | Temperature °C | Duration | Temperature °C | ||
| 00:00:00 | 30.00 | 0 | 24.0 | ||
| 00:05:00 | 141.50 | 00:05:00 | 116.80 | ||
| 00:10:00 | 191.80 | 00:10:00 | 186.30 | ||
| 00:15:00 | 212.00 | 00:15:00 | 212.70 | ||
| 00:20:00 | 221.00 | 00:20:00 | 223.90 | ||
| 00:25:00 | 225.30 | 00:25:00 | 229.40 | ||
| 00:30:00 | 227.20 | 00:30:00 | 232.30 | ||
| 00:35:00 | 228.90 | 00:35:00 | 233.90 | ||
| 00:40:00 | 229.80 | 00:40:00 | 235.00 | ||
| 00:45:00 | 230.90 | 00:45:00 | 235.40 | ||
| 00:50:00 | 231.10 | 00:50:00 | 235.10 | ||
| 00:55:00 | 231.50 | 00:55:00 | 235.40 | ||
| 01:00:00 | 231.90 | 01:00:00 | 235.70 | ||
Well guys , what can I say other than “WHAT A TOTAL DISAPPOINTMENT!” So I did the test again just make sure it was right. I checked the equipment over each time, it was all fine.
I was expecting sky high temperatures, rocketing fast warm ups and utterly unbelievable blow me away numbers. Instead I got the above. Please, “I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION, WHY IS EVERY CLIMATE CLOWN LYING TO EVERYONE???????????????????!!!!!!!!!!”
SHUT UP CLIMATE CLOWNS!! CLIMATE CLOWNS SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!
In the above you can see at every stage it warms more slowly and it ends up with steady state maximum temperatures far below that of the plate by itself? Just what kind of insulating effect is that?????? IT ISNT!
Co2 IS NOT AN INSULATING BLANKET
It does not act like one, because it is not one. To even think it is, is pure madness and believe me, most of the leaders of the world are totally mad. Every climate scientist on the planet with a PHD in Climate Crisis is deluding themselves and they ARE LYING TO YOU! NASA can get it wrong and they are getting it wrong every day, as you can quite clearly see here.
Anyone who says CO2 is an insulating blanket, “SHUT UP FOOL!” You are a clown, you have no idea, you are a complete moron. Go sort your head out, it’s a mess.
I CAN SHOW THIS TRUTH ANYWHERE, and yet for some reason, I can’t think why not, every university I have requested, to be allowed to demonstrate this truth to their students has been declined. Go figure eh? This leads me to one conclusion, universities are not campuses for learning, they are CAMPS for INDOCTRINATION. Nothing else. THEY WILL NOT EXPOSE THEIR STUDENTS TO TRUTH>THEY CANT. Their wallets depend on it.
Test 4 – Flat Plate with Argon 1 Bar
| TEST 4 | |
| Duration | Temperature °C |
| 00:00:00 | 25.30 |
| 00:05:00 | 159.60 |
| 00:10:00 | 211.70 |
| 00:15:00 | 232.90 |
| 00:20:00 | 241.90 |
| 00:25:00 | 245.60 |
| 00:30:00 | 246.90 |
| 00:35:00 | 247.90 |
| 00:40:00 | 247.70 |
| 00:45:00 | 247.70 |
| 00:50:00 | 247.80 |
| 00:55:00 | 248.00 |
| 01:00:00 | 248.00 |
I did this out of pure curiosity, to see how CO2 compares with Argon, argon cooled the plate also as can be seen above. Nothing special about CO2. RGHE is a lie, it is nothing but a CON!
SUMMARY TABLE
Test Maximum Temperature after 1 Hour. °C
Flat Plate Vacuum 288.70
Flat Plate Vacuum Insulation Blanket 359.00
Flat Plate PURE 100% CO2. (1 Bar) 235.70
Flat Plate PURE 100% Argon (1 Bar) 248.00
Conclusion
What kind of blanket is CO2, if it leaves you 50°C cooler compared to without the gas and over 100°C cooler compared to with the blanket?
It is simple, CO2 is nothing at all like a blanket and all the false prophets and phoney authorities that tell you that is, need to be removed from power their false laws overturned, they are total liars you can all see that here.
You can all see it, but that’s not enough, now you all need to act on it also. Show them this truth, demand they acknowledge this truth and then demand they be brave and stamp out all Climate Clownery everywhere it exists.
That is what we must all do.
And don’t forget now, they are teaching the total lies of Climate Crisis fraud to kids, every single day, you need to put a stop to that treachery right now.
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.
Alan
| #
It is correct to say that CO2 is not equivalent to an insulation blanket and neither is the atmosphere. But these experiments are pointless. Air is a good thermal insulator, look at its thermal conductivity to discover this. We don’t rely on it in cavity walls anymore because it is a gas and the convection currents in the cavity wall mean it is not as effective as an insulating material. In the atmosphere the air currents mean it does not act as insulation. It distributes heat around the earth and acts more as a coolant. One look at the high surface temperatures on the moon compared to Earth tells us that the atmosphere keeps the earth cooler when the sun is shining and warmer at night. This is not how insulation works.
But more importantly insulation does not increase the temperature of the insulated system, it slows down the rate of heat loss. So, even if the atmosphere acted as insulation it would not result in a higher surface temperature because the sun determines that temperature. However, by slowing down the rate of heat loss it would result in the surface staying warmer for longer, so the average temperature would increase. We are not seeing this. According to reports, both the maximum and average are increasing. For the atmosphere to act as insulation it would have to include a region where there were no air currents, effectively like a solid surface, and that does not happen
NASA is an utterly useless organisation for climate science but that falls under GISS.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
I dunno if it’s more suitable posting this here, or in the recent UK food shortage article.
So I was checking a “miner” saying stuff…
https://norgemining.com/2020/02/27/phosphate-supply-one-of-the-most-important-issues-in-the-world-today/
There’s “corporate” logic. That guy is management of a mining company, and doesn’t know even the most basic of basics…I would BET that is indicative of industry and supposed “authority” in general.
“Over-use and pollution
Interestingly, the Guardian article states that an excessive use of phosphates is also ‘causing widespread pollution’. Over-application of phosphate fertilisers can be a problem. As with use of any fertiliser, it’s down to mindful use and common sense. More rigorous guidelines are needed globally to stop this unnecessary waste. And yet, compared to nitrogen, I believe it provides a more natural alternative – one that’s friendlier to our planet.”
That moron seems to think nitrogen and phosphorus are interchangeable, yet he makes decisions about resources?
NO.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Geraint:
I CAN SHOW THIS TRUTH ANYWHERE, and yet for some reason, I can’t think why not, every university I have requested, to be allowed to demonstrate this truth to their students has been declined. Go figure eh? This leads me to one conclusion, universities are not campuses for learning, they are CAMPS for INDOCTRINATION. Nothing else. THEY WILL NOT EXPOSE THEIR STUDENTS TO TRUTH>THEY CANT. Their wallets depend on it.
Geraint,
You’ll never get a response from any of these clowns. But if you did this is how it would probably go (See pasted below).
A short explanation;
This involves a conversation in a related field that is equally as clownish as global warming: Meteorology’s Storm Theory.
The particular clown here is a Phd. Meteorologists, Dr Edwin Berry
Edwin:
James,
You have done a lot of hand waving about your theory of storms. But you have not produced any evidence to show how accepted meteorology is incorrect. Evidence means data. Yet, you have accused me and all credible meteorologists of being hypocritical.
So, to back up your claims, can you show examples where the following meteorological textbooks have made errors that conflict with data?
Hess: Introduction to Meteorology
Fleagle and Businger: An Introduction to Atmospheric Physics
Haltiner and Martin: Dynamic and Physical Meteorology
Mason: The Physics of Clouds
Salby: Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate
Khvorostyanov and Curry: Thermodynamics, Kinetics, and Microphysics of Clouds
Please be specific by referring to equations, paragraphs, and pages that disagree with your claims. When you have proven your competence, we and other visitors on this site can have a scientific discussion of your personal theories that contradict data and are therefore wrong.
Surely, if you are competent, this task will be easy for you.
James McGinn:
This is the tactic all religions employ when confronted with skeptics. “Here is a bible. Prove to me that this is not the word of God.” Sorry, but in science the burden of proof is on those that make extraordinary claims. I do not maintain that water turns gaseous at temperatures far below its known boiling temperature. You do. I do not maintain that dry air acts as a flat shield to contain upwelling moist air from below. You do. I do not maintain that latent heat somehow (magic I presume) causes the gusty winds of storms. You do.
Of course you have zero chance of substantiating any of this. But that is not my problem. You believe it. Not me. Defend what you believe. Or admit what is plainly obvious–you have not given these notions any critical thought since they were introduced to you as an undergraduate.
Edwin Berry:
James,
Your reply above to my request demonstrates that you are a fraud. You claim, without proof, that I “believe” certain things that you disagree with. Likely, you are unable to understand any parts of the standard meteorological books I listed. I gave you the opportunity and you failed. You did not find anything in the six textbooks I listed to demonstrate your claims.
You are a simply another moronic blowhard climate alarmist from San Jose, California, who does not understand science or meteorology or climate. Bye.
James McGinn:
Edwin,
I’m sorry that you found this inquiry offensive. I was only trying to understand why it is that if you accept the Meteorology’s convection model of storms based on nothing but consensus you do not extend the same courtesy to climatology.
See the full conversation at the following link:
The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/fo(REMOVE)rum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446
James McGinn / Genius
President of Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
I indeed do have response of similar ilk, i know your feeling. However, i can perform demonstrations anywhere, and i can produce flyers too. At some point time i will do them “outside” their universities in public spaces, and there will be nothing they could do about that. They can not hide from the truth forever.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
I wiish you the best but I think you are missing my point about the irony of the fact that Dr. Edwin Berry is a rabid global warming critic yet he resorts to their exact tactics when the subject shifts to the physics of storms. I suggest you read the whole conversation at the link provided. (Be aware you have to remove the “(REMOVE)” in order for the link to work.)
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
William Morgan
| #
I’ve got some ageing double glazed window units to reseal & re-gas over the next few months. Their failure shows up with internal condensation. Will the glaziers refill the spaces with dry CO2? Of course they won’t. They’ll use dry Argon. Surely this common experience for homeowners should be another nail in the coffin for the Climate Cultists?
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Also, Co2 is the refrigerant they want you to use, over and above, say other refrigerants, like HFCS, these do not destroy o-zone, but apparently are 250 times more greenhouse gas than CO2. They dont care if this make refrigeration more expensive and in turn food. RGHE is the most pernicous lie being perpetrated upon society and Justice must be sought against the clowns perpetrating it.
Reply
Barry
| #
Great experiment again Geraint. Thanks for that I was also wondering about the speed of cooling as it would seem that it is indeed cooling faster than air alone. Does this mean that it would actually make our atmosphere a better conductor and cool it rather than warm it. Not sure where they came up with the insulation argument anyway as it use to be simply the claimed back radiation theory that of course can be easily debunked with thermodynamics.
Thanks again for a great article.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Great work, Geraint!
Reply
yougottaloveme
| #
Nice job Geraint!
In seeking to look beyond argument, what is it that we The Informed should be doing? There is so much brain power exhibited here on a routine basis, but the combined effect of this neuronal outpour seems to amount to little more than which end of the egg to crack. Too many love to fight among the allies. There are no solutions being offered to the extremely dangerous reality about to hit us, namely, “How does the world feed its eight+ billion mouths when the sun’s power output has dropped to below the level needed to comfortably sustain agriculture and block cloud-producing, cold-ushering cosmic rays?”
Reply
Graham
| #
This test rig is nonsense, all the tests should stabilise at 359’C. ALL OF THEM.
When they stabilise at (eg) 236’C there is a 123’C shortfall
Since the room is at 24’C, the total range is (359-24==335)
So that is an error shortfall of 1/3 to 1/2, when it should be a degree or 2
You should go for a top temp of 60’C
You should take more readings in the initial slope of the graph
That slope does say that CO2 is a better insulator than a vacuum
but with the endpoint fault, it might not say anything
Why did you not plot a graph? Strange choice.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Graham,
What on Earth are you babbling about? You drunk?
Reply