Bridging the Gap in Greenhouse Gas Theory – One Plate Test

Written by Geraint Hughes

Today, we present further refinement and details of an experiment that destroys climate alarm. In an earlier article I showed that back radiant calculations behind man-made global warming theory are wrong.  For new readers, please check out that original post, ‘Bridging The Gap! Greenhouse Gas Theory Fail.’ [1]

To recap the article:-

A flat plate in space, at standard Earth Orbit distance, with no other objects around it will arrive at a temperature of 394K, as confirmed by NASA in the link below.  I am going to call this Hypothesis 1.  This is with an input of 1367 watts on one side, that absorbing side, will warm until it reaches resonating equilibrium with the intensity of radiation that it is in receipt of.  That being 394k. [2]

Promoters of the discredited greenhouse gas theory who employ misleading back radiant maths would have us believe that the temperature of the same flat plate in space would arrive at is 331k, much lower than observed reality.  I am going to call this Hypothesis 2, the false universe (aka ‘computer models’).  In our universe (‘reality’), it does not work like that, hence why it is false.

So how to prove this without going into space?

Test Rig

Herein is the data for anyone to check and to dissect. This is real science. Empirical evidence, demonstrated in a laboratory using standard scientific equipment properly calibrated and readily open to be replicated by others, is the way solid, traditional science is done.

Forget theoretical computer models which are unreliable and prone to gross error (just look at how  computer models by ‘experts’ grossly over-estimated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic!).

A test rig, which can apply a known quantity of heat and then simply observe the maximum temperature of a flat plate.  If the final temperature closely aligns with the temperature pre-determined using Hypothesis 1 method, then that is the correct model and not Hypothesis 2, which predicts much cooler temperatures.

My test rig is my taller tower borosilicate glass chamber, and I have put in a 100 watt reflector lamp and I have then dangled with fishing wire, a 120mm diameter flat black plate and on the back of this plate in the centre I will place a 1000 C capable temperature probe which connects back to a data logger.  The space between the lamp and the plate will be as small as I can get it, a few mm, with no physical contact and the lamp is wrapped with Aluminium, to ensure as much as the light which goes downwards is reflected upwards to reduce losses and get as much as the 100 watts going to the plate as possible.

I took some close ups too, to show some more detail.

No Contact with bulb and plate.

Close up of Data Logger

This is held up from the side of the glass chamber, with putty, string and Velcro straps.

Close up of Temperature Probe 1000 C° Capability

Predictions (Final Steady State Temperature)

Hypothesis 1, would predict a maximum temperate of the flat plate of 355 C°.  This is because the area of the 120mm diameter plate, considering only one side is  11,309.73mm2 and 100 watts evenly spread across this area is equivalent to  8,841.94 watts per m2.  Or in simple layman terms, if we had an area of 1m2 we would be heating that area up with 88.41 100 watt bulbs.  This equates back to a temperature of 628.41k or 355 C°.  Similarly if we took the averaging back radiation approach, the area of emission of the plate in the calculation doubles 22,619.47mm2, we would expect a steady state temperature of 528.43K or 255 C°

Actual Experiment

Therefore all we need to do now, is set the rig up, evacuate all the air, switch on the bulb and then perform a test and leave light bulb on until steady state temperatures of the flat plate are achieved and see what results this brings and simply compare this to the predictions expected from the two hypothesis.

Results

I did several tests, test no 2, the middle one below, I have uploaded onto You-tube, the results of the data log are as below.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhHb6PGBwxQ&list=PLF66zq1SOYiuDC5M51y7iMOO2-DnImyfq

Test 1, 2 & 3.

The data log is above.  The maximum temperature achieved with my set up is 312.6 C° in test 1, in test 2 it was 306.80 C°  in test 3 it was 308.40 C°.  In test 3 a support bracket, which was supporting the data logger, dropped down onto the plate,  you can see this above, it caused the temperature to drop from 295 to 291 and then it took a bit longer to reach maximum temperature than the other two tests This is far in excess of the 255 predicted by the false universe hypothesis 2 and not far off from Hypothesis 1.  I can repeat this test, again & again & again and get similar results each time.

The reason it didn’t get to full predicted temperature of 355 is there is a problem of efficiency of heat transfer from the bulb to the plate.  The process is not 100% efficient, no process ever is, as not all of the energy emitted by the bulb is going upwards.  A portion is being lost going downwards and a portion is lost being emitted outwardly to the sides also, these losses are visible.  I attempted to reduce these loses with the aluminium foil, wrapped around the bulb so as to reflect as much light upwards as possible.

There is also some non-radiation conduction heat losses occurring due to the presence of the spacers between the glass and the plate.  Those are there to stop the plate from touching the glass, which it does using hanging wires.

There are conduction losses from the wires which are hanging the plate also, as well as the temperature probe itself.  After I switch it off, expose it to air again and touch the probe it is too hot to handle.

The wires are supported onto the side of the glass with putty, that putty contains water and when the glass warms it cause it to evaporate which is then having a cooling effect on the plate as the moisture circulates in the chamber.

With these losses the overall efficiency of heat transfer from the 100 watt bulb to the plate is approximately 76%.

In Test 2, the test ended prematurely as the logger fell of the side as can be seen in the you tube clip.

After rectification, test 3 was conducted.

Defeating Determined Detractors

We know so well all the make believe nonsense detractors are going to put forward when seeing this, so let’s address those non-issues now:

Back Radiance from the Glass Chamber.

This is the kind of thought process that greenhouse gas theory believers will indulge in:  “Back radiance from the glass wasn’t eliminated, it exists, this is the cause of the higher temperature rise, all you did was prove back radiance.”

Firstly, If we assumed that back radiant hypothesis was real with a 76% efficient heat transfer process and we performed the necessary fake back radiant mathematics, we arrive at a predicted temperature of 257 C° and that would be if the external glass along its entire length reached a temperature of 200 C°.  If we assumed 100% efficiency, which is a complete nonsense we still only get 288.  The time to end your delusions is now.  Your science is false.  As can be seen from the you tube videos the temperature of the glass at the point where the plate is, only reached a mere 77 C°.  This is not sufficient to emit the rate of energy required to explain the observed temperatures if we assumed the false universe was how it was.

Although it is hot enough to melt the glue on the Velcro straps which caused the bracket to fall off holding the data logger, on test 2.  The strap and bracket also fell off on experiment 3, but I had 2 brackets so the date logger still held in place and the experiment continued.  The bracket dropping, just caused a small dip in the temperature and meant it took a bit longer to reach the maximum.

Secondly, see the improvements to experiment section as to why this fake climate crisis dumb detraction can be eliminated entirely.  The false legs the false universe climate crisis rests upon are being removed as we speak.

What is actually happening.

What is actually happening is that the temperature on the lamp side of the plate is being determined entirely by the intensity of the radiation incident upon it.  The atoms of the plate are then increasing their rate of vibration (warming) which is what is causing the temperature rise.  When the intensity of vibration of the molecules matches the intensity of the radiation incident upon it, warming stops.  This is the steady state temperature.

Vibrational state of atoms go by another name Resonance.  This is the important word which needs to be remembered.  Not back radiance or radiant forcing.

The rate of heat transfer from the molecules at the front to the back of the plate, the thermal conductivity of the aluminium, here which is 237 w/m K, or for 1mm, 237,000 w/mm K, means that the temperature on the reverse side of the 1mm plate is virtually identical to the temperature on the hot side of the plate.  The fast vibrating atoms at the front of the plate bump the atoms beside them, transferring energy, that simple.

You don’t average the temperature of the plate, to find an emission of 100 watts each side.  What you do is determine the rate of temperature to match the rate of absorption of 100 watts and then calculate the temperature of the other side depending upon the thickness of the plate and the rate of thermal conductivity of the material under consideration. (Assuming black body of course.)

When designing satellites this is the process rocket scientists will perform, calculating the thermal resistance of the material to determine the path of least resistance that heat flows are most likely to go.  False universe back radiant maths, is not the process utilised, because it fails, it will give you the wrong answer, just like in this test.

I can do this same test with a solid cube and measure the temperature of the solid cube on all its sides, or even a hollow cube, or a solid sphere or a hollow sphere.  Back radiance & pathetic averaging calculations can be ignored in their entirety, they are non- relevant as the effect is non-present and their results predicted entirely wrong.

What matters is the rate of absorption & the rate of thermal transfer of the material.  A material with high conductivity enables higher temperatures around the cube than one with a lower conductivity.

This is why if we had a 100% efficient heat transfer system, the plate would reach 355 C°, on both its sides.  When viewed with an IR camera it would be at that temperature.  An idiot faker, whom believes in back radiance would wrongly then say, it is emitting 100 watts from both sides, therefore it is emitting 200 watts, which is an idiotic fallacy to say the least.  It is not, it is radiating at the resonating rate of intensity which matches the resonating rate of intensity of the radiation which is incident upon it on the absorbing side from the 100 watt light bulb.

Nothing else is in play here.  The atoms are vibrating to match the rate of absorption.  They do not radiate at a much lower rate so that 50% of energy incoming radiates out each side of the atom.  That’s just silly and quite childish thinking.  How could an atom perform this feat?

Yet this is the thinking behind believers in the false physics of the greenhouse gas theory.

This is the fallacy behind all climate carbon regulation and it is the fallacy which is being undone and all such legislation, taxes and such like also need to be undone.

Improvements which can be made to experiment.

Below are a list of improvements which can be made to the experiment to improve it further.

With the assistance of PSI we are going to seek funding for further refinements and attain 100%  confidence that the nonsense about man made global warming, claimed by believers in the greenhouse gas theory, simply is not happening at all.

These are as follows :-

  • Replace spacers with wood.
  • Replace hanging wires with wooden ones also.
  • Improve reflector around bulb.
  • Have a larger vacuum chamber. (Remove need for spacers altogether)
  • Improved vacuum pump.
  • Peform more detailed tests with other shapes also, cubes, spheres, mutli-plates etc.
  • Replace support putty, with something which does not contain water, to reduce convective and evaporative cooling which was evident.
  • Make the Vacuum chamber IR transparent.
  • Make the Vacuum Chamber lid IR Transparent.
  • Make the Vacuum chamber super cooled and black, so as to remove all radiation absorption incident upon it so as to remove all source of back radiance, thereby eliminating its non-effects in their entirety.

These are the very real improvements which can be made to show that anyone who persists in saying back radiant heating is real is making clearly unscientific, unproven claims.

What are they going to say, when the lid is IR transparent?  There is no back radiance and yet the temperature I achieve is achieved?  What are they going to say when the entire column is IR transparent?

What are they going to say when the entire test is performed in a black absorbing super cooled container and there is NO BACK RADIANCE AT ALL, AS ALL OUTWARD RADIANCE IS ABSORBED AND TAKEN AWAY BY REFRIGERANT?

Radiation Greenhouse effect, climate crisis, back radiant fake physics, it is all a lie, no getting away from that any more.  One BIG LIE.

For more on their lies you can see my book.  https://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Dragon-Breaking-Frizzle-Frazzle/dp/1949267008

The results of these improved experiments will be made open to academia, industry and the general populace at large.

Done in accordance with the improvements mentioned, this test completely slays the supposed back radiant heating mechanism theory and fake radiation greenhouse theory.  CO2 thus can have  no heating effect on the surface of the Earth whatsoever.

[1] https://principia-scientific.org/bridging-the-gap-greenhouse-gas-theory-fail/

[2]  https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/estimating_the_temperature.htm


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

Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Comments (24)

  • Avatar

    judy

    |

    Geraint, I have a question for you. Some of the critics of your experiment say that you can either prove or disapprove the greenhouse effect by holding the palm of your hand about 5 cm away from your cheek. When I do that my cheek immediately becomes warm. So, my question is can you please explain what the thermodynamics are in the hand experiment and what relevance it has to the suppose it greenhouse effect

    • Avatar

      TL Winslow

      |

      Your body’s metabolism is constantly generating heat that the air removes from your skin. When you hold your hand 5 cm from your cheek, it hampers the removal process, like a small blanket, plus more heat is being removed by the air from your palm, and has no where to go but your cheek, which won’t get warmer than your internal temperature but will definitely heat up towards it. This has nothing to do with the CO2-driven greenhouse effect, and would apply only to a real greenhouse with a walls and roof, which Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t have.

      Why does Hughes keep up his pointless experiments when I’ve been screaming to the skies that CO2 can’t melt an ice cube because it’s emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, which isn’t even heat? Every time you hear the U.N. IPCC lie that atmospheric CO2 “traps and piles heat in the atmosphere”, throw it right back at them. Their days are numbered. I wish they’d be forced to give all the money back.

      http://www.historyscoper.com/thebiglieaboutco2.html

      • Avatar

        JaKo

        |

        Hi TL,
        Why, you ask — because there’s a ‘trend’ in the world, more than lately — that trend is to deceive ‘the masses;’ whether through a plant-food of otherwise negligible consequence (but of great potential of returns on investments into the ‘green technology’) or through the BIG CORONA scare of magisterial proportions to feed the well fed, aka the big pharma; the ruling class has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are there for a reason — they know better!
        It is too late to change the curricula from KG to the UG education — the harm had been done already and it stays that way….
        Sorry,
        JaKo

      • Avatar

        richard

        |

        “Is it therefore necessary to pay attention to trapped radiation in deducing the temperature of a planet as affected by its atmosphere? The solar rays penetrate the atmosphere, warm the ground which in turn warms the atmosphere by contact and by convection currents. The heat received is thus stored up in the atmosphere, remaining there on account of the very low radiating power of a gas. It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions.”

        “Robert Williams Wood (May 2, 1868 – August 11, 1955) was an American physicist and inventor. He is often cited as being a pivotal contributor to the field of optics and a pioneer of infrared and ultraviolet photography. Wood’s patents and theoretical work inform modern understanding of the nature and physics of ultraviolet radiation, and made possible the myriad uses of UV-fluorescence which became popular after World War I.[1][2][3][4] He published many articles on spectroscopy, phosphorescence, diffraction, and ultraviolet light.”

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Richard,
          The atmosphere at sea level contains 1.2 kg/m^3 of molecules separated by distance which results in new collisions between molecules. Water at sea level contains 1000 kg/m^3 molecules in constant contact with each other. Any energy added to the top layer of water will immediately be transferred to the cooler molecules below rather transferred to gas molecules. Wood is correct. It is uv and x-rays that heat the atmosphere not the surface of the Earth.
          Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            Herb, we know O2 and O3 can absorb UV. But, have you seen anything that claims O3 can emit UV? I believe that O3 just loses energy via collisions, before converting back to O2. But have you seen evidence that O3 actually emits UV?

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran,
            The only evidence I’ve seen is the violet light around electrical sparks producing O3 and that ozone itself is described as having a purple glow. Ozone is unstable and will decompose even in the dark (the “ozone hole”) so I don’t know if it needs to absorb uv or for there to be collisions in order for it to split The fact that the O3 bond spontaneously breaks would indicate to me that there should be some form of energy released, just as when a neutron spontaneously splits into an electron and proton it releases energy in the form of a gamma ray.
            Herb

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            That’s an interesting thought, Herb. But if it’s visible, it was likely produced by the spark. UVc is way out of the visible range.

            But, I don’t think an experiment would be hard, if one had access to a spectrometer. Ozone generators are used for deodorizing confined spaces. So fill a glass container with ozone and view with the spectrometer. If ozone can emit UV, it shouldn’t be hard to prove. That’s why I’m disappointed I can’t find any such experimenting online.

          • Avatar

            Herb Rose

            |

            Hi Geran,
            I don’t think the experiment needs to be that complicated. Put an electric ozone generator in a shield container so light cannot escape then blow the ozone on a florescent dye to see if it glows.
            Herb

    • Avatar

      Chris

      |

      Judy. Neither your hand nor check is a calibrated measuring instrument. Both can be fooled. That experiment isn’t scientific.

  • Avatar

    Kraig Dixon

    |

    Great work. Good luck getting your results peer reviewed and published though.
    Bet the Climate Alarmists would hate to see your same experiment ran using actual Hydrogen Fusion radiation, as opposed to non- nuclear infrared radiation.
    Try running your numbers like I did using Hydrogen fusion radiation (as opposed to direct non-nuclear infrared input) relevant to total solar irradiation and the facts are embarrassing to any IPCC model that claims CO2 is a radiant factor.
    Cheers and keep going.
    Kraig

  • Avatar

    Jonas

    |

    I think you are doing some very important work – experimental verification/rejection of the back radiation hypothesis.

    I do however have one comment to your experiment. When you keep the plate so close to the light bulb, some can argue that the backradiation from the plate is reflected by the light bulb so that the true incoming radiation to the plate is higher… or do I get it wrong ?
    It is the same as saying that the light bulb also gets hotter and hotter, not only the plate.

    By the way, I share very much of your views on backradiation. I think much of the existing descriptions of radiation and reradiation is based on mistunderstandings. I think the fundamental mistake people do is to view the temperature as the driver for emission (the so called Stefan-Boltzman law). In fact Boltzman never said that. Boltzman said something different. Neither did Planck show any radiation law.
    Temperature is a man made concept – not a physical force, neither a potential.The driver for emission is atomic movements (acceleration of charges).

    One can make a parallell with a pressurized gas tank with hole. It you vary the temperature in the tank you would observe that the outflow is proportional to the temperature. Noone states that. They state the the outflow is proportional to the pressure, and the pressure is proportional to the temperature.

    I think it is the same with radiation – you have to work with radiation pressure (or energy density) as the drivers. Then you get a flow direction. The flow will be such that it spreads out the energy (not concentrate it by backradiation)

  • Avatar

    lifeisthermal

    |

    I enjoy your experiments very much, you do a fantastic job. I remember Eli Rabett claims adding a second plate will make the system warmer, it would be fun to see you prove him wrong. For anyone with a brain he´s obviously wrong, but punch him in the face with it.

    • Avatar

      Jonas

      |

      I have also looked at Eli´s model. It has one very interesting feature.
      The more plates you add, the more energy is backradiated by the first plate. If you add a large number of plates all incoming energy is backradiated by the first plate. Voila, that is a construction of a perfect reflector using 100% absorbing material !

      Something seems to be fundamentally wrong with that model.

    • Avatar

      geran

      |

      “For anyone with a brain he´s obviously wrong…”

      Agreed. The “blue/green plates” nonsense is pure pseudoscience, just like the GHE nonsense. Both are based on the bogus belief that “cold” can raise the temperature of :”hot”.

  • Avatar

    Alan

    |

    This nonsense has absolutely no connection with atmospheric physics.

    • Avatar

      geraint hughes

      |

      Alan,

      CO2 does not cause back radiant induced heating of the surface. It is stupid to say it does, therefore it is entirely relevant.

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    Geraint, I admire your work and diligence. You appear very interested in getting all the details worked out. That makes for the best results.

    I think the controversy between the two hypotheses involves whether or not the plate is insulated on the back, or not. At equilibrium, a “perfect” plate will be emitting the same from both front and back surfaces. So the incoming flux, 1367 W/m^2 would result in 683.5 W/m^2 being emitted from both surfaces, resulting in a plate temperature of 331.4 K, as you calculated in “Hypothesis 2”.

    If the plate had perfect inulation on the back side, then it would only be emitting from the front, so its temperature would be the 394 K.

    Also, you might be able to find the actual filament temperature of your bulb. The manufacturer sometimes provides such information. Online sources indicate typical incandescent filament temperatures are about 3000 K.

    https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/AlexanderEng.shtml

    • Avatar

      Geraint Hughes

      |

      The black plate is un-insulated. It arrives at the maximum steady temperature when the plate is thin & without insulation, which exceeds by far the false narrative of back radiant averaging fake physics. The plate without insulation exceeds the average calculated maximum using that false model. The false averaging model should therefore be ignored as it is not right and it is the one used by lieing climate crisis fake environmentalists.

      • Avatar

        geran

        |

        I think you indicated the un-insulated black plate achieved a max temperature of 312.6 ºC, corresponding to 586K. Since a black plate is close to 1.0 emissivity, it would be emitting 319 W/m^2. The 120 mm diameter circular plate would then be emitting 3.6 Watts from both sides, or 7.2 Watts total. That’s pretty good results considering the bulb is likely only emitting 15 Watts, due to its poor efficiency.

        Your diligence has paid off, even having to work in the confined space of a vacuum chamber!

        • Avatar

          Geraint Hughes

          |

          Your maths is entirely wrong, so much so I’d actually say you just plucked them out of thin air.

          A 585k blackbody surface emitts 6641.2 W/m2 according to spectral calc.com, which is of course correct and aligns with stefan boltzman equation.

          That equates back to 76 watts for the area Which is why i said it is 76% efficient for a 100 watt bulb.

          If you were an averaging greenhouse plonker, you would say it is emitting that both sides of the plate, it is not.

          The lamp is emitting 100 watts, its a 100 watt bulb only 76% of energy emitted was absorbed by the plate.

          319 w/m2 equates back to a lowly 274K, or +0.85 C

          • Avatar

            geran

            |

            You’re correct, Geraint. I don’t know where I got that figure for the flux. I use a spreadsheet to do the calculation, and I must have picked from the wrong column. Sorry!

            But, if the entire plate is at the 585 K temperature, wouldn’t both sides be emitting?

  • Avatar

    Zoe Phin

    |

    Very nice work, Geraint.

    The plate creates a well known damping effect.

    http://www.cmacn.org/energy/basics/hc_temp.htm

    The correct physics doesn’t split the incoming radiation in half – as you demonstrate.

    The thicker the material, the more it’s damped on the other side (lower temperature). However, the incoming side is NEVER cooled from what radiation can make it.

    In the theoretical greenplate effect, the plate is considered ultra thin, therefore there is no damping. And so the externally facing side comes to match the incoming side, which matches what radiation can make it.

    Wall makers always knew what climate “scientists” didn’t. lol

    https://www.nudura.co.uk/divisions/why-icfs/thermal-mass

Comments are closed