# NASA’s Great Peak Fake Swindle – Part 2

Written by Geraint Hughes

I can see from the comments on my last posting ‘NASA’s Great Peak Fake Swindle‘ regarding NASA’s fake and misleading graph, some readers are confused so I am going to clear things up below.

**Professionals**

Here is a quick run-down of how professionals analyse information to test its worthiness, firstly we break things down using a conceptual framework using what are known as the Fundamental Characteristics, these being relevance and faithful representation.

Relevance, is that which is considered regards its omission or misstatement would affect the users of that information judgement. Irrelevant information, can be ignored and not included for it does not add to any decision making process. Such as say, should the number of cereal bowls in the world be shown on a graph of Earths radiation emission? OFC not, it’s just not relevant.

Faithful representation, a perfectly faithful representation is one which is complete, neutral and free from error.

We can all see how the Fake Peak NASA Graph, is relevant as its shows the Earth emissive spectra, albeit from a very warped point of view, but is it a faithful representation which would not bring both informed and uninformed people to the wrong conclusion? As I will show below, it is not.

Now, as well as fundamental characteristics, there are also things known as “Enhancing Characteristics” these are “Comparability, Timeliness, Verifiability and Understandability.”

Comparability, you should be able to compare information with other information, so that people can come to the relevant conclusion. Having non-comparable data & information, leads to confusion, such as those evidenced in the confused comments people are posting on my previous article.

Timeliness, no point in releasing a warning of impending volcanic eruption based on your seismic data, two weeks after it erupted.

Verifiability, knowledgeable users should be able to agree that a particular depiction of information is a faithful representation of what’s occurring given the context of the situation.

Understandability, information should be presented as clearly and concisely as possible.

Now, from the above, the problems with the NASA graph, reposted below lie in the area of faithful misrepresentation, comparability & Understandability, these three failings, cause disagreement amongst experts (as evidenced by the false comments) and confusion in the Verifiability of the information, which then leads to false conclusions and wrongful decision making.

__Go get a clue, Graph__

It looks so convincing doesn’t it. Well, you need to get clued up, it is not a faithful representation in the context of the presentation it is provided in. The peak emissions of the Earth, do not lie in the 500 to 700 wavenumber band, as I will demonstrate.

Its failings of comparability, lie with the cm^{-1} on the Y-Axis. This makes it fail on the Understandability front too, can you draw an inverse centi-metre?

In the table below I have the true peak information shown below.

For a 294k Black body emission spectra, the peak emittance occurs at 9.8563 um or 1014.58 cm^{-1}. Your choice of unit measurement has no bearing on where the peak emittance is, it is the same regardless.

What I have done here, is show the information so you can more easily understand it. I have shown 0.5 micron as a band before and after this peak to show band emittance & then 1 micron bands before and after the peak so you can compare the two.

Now, you may have noticed before this time I will draw your attention to it, I have a column called BAND RADIANCE, this is **W/m2/sr.** From this, radiant Emittance in **(W/m2) **can be determined, and it is these two figures which are the important information. Both Wavelengths expressed in Microns and Wavenumbers expressed in inverse centimetres can be converted back into Radiance and Radiant Emittance, which is the important information.

**Simple Table**

You can see from the Band Radiance and the radiant Emittance that the peak of emissions column, clearly lie in the middle band at 9.8563.

Six graphs below represent this, but these graphs have different Y-Axis. The first three have **W/m2/sr/um **& the last three have **W/m2/sr/cm ^{-1}. **And it is this apples & oranges which is causing everyone confusion.

**Faithful representation, in context of Emissions, Before the Peak**

**Faithful representation, in context of Emissions, At the Peak**

**Faithful representation, ****in context of Emissions, **** After the Peak**

**Misleading representation, ****in context of Emissions,**** Before the Peak**

**Misleading representation, ****in context of Emissions, ****at the Peak**

**Misleading representation, ****in context of Emissions, ****after the Peak**

Do you see the problem yet?

The first three graphs are faithful representation, as the context is the emission of the planet & CO2 in relation to it. From looking at the misleading graphs which are using Wavenumbers and Spectral radiance defined in units of cm^{-1}

You see the decreasing wavenumbers, and you see a rising spectral radiance number and you think that this equates to an increasing rate of Emittance, it does not. As the wave number is rising and the spectral radiance is increasing, the rate of Emittance is decreasing, you just haven’t performed the necessary conversion mathematics in your head to see this.

The graph is therefore misleading.

This can be overcome by making the graphs, COMPARIBLE with each other.

You do this by making them APPLES FOR APPLES, and you do this by removing the **um** & **cm ^{-1} **from the Y-Axis, so that the information shows

**W/m2/sr**regardless if you use wavelength or wavenumber.

This is done as follows, for wavelengths, our devisor is the micron, so to remove it we multiply by 1 micron, easy. A micron is easy to understand because we can all picture a metre divided into one million parts.

For the wavenumber, we multiply by the wavenumber then divide by the equivalent wavelength at that point. This is harder to follow as we have no mental picture of what an inverse centimetre actually looks like. Can you picture one in your head? I have inserted in the table below, 10 micron and 1000 wavenumber so you can see. Spectral radiance at 1000 wavenumber is 0.0.0899204 **W/m2/sr/****cm ^{-1}. (**0.0899204 * 1000)/10= 8.99204 which matches the band radiance figure on the wavelength side.

I have cut and pasted Hitran so you can see. (Verifiability)

Hitran Wavelength Data at 10um, 8.99204 spectral radiance.

The blue, easy to follow row, makes it easy for you to follow the maths when converting into Band Radiance. There’s a slight difference in my calculation only because of rounding on Excel. You see how 0.0899204 going to 0.103748 on the inverse centimetre side (bottom two rows), resulted in a decrease in band radiance / watts / joules (I.e. Energy emitted.), for this temperature of object.

And there we have it, band radiance at each point which can then be used to determine Radiant Emittance in watts by multiplying out by PI. This can be done at all points along the graph and when this is done, the two graphs have identical peaking points. You can see the peak, when converted into band radiance is at the same point, band radiance can then be converted into watts per square metre, using PI. The PEAK OF EMISSIONS, is at exactly the same place, regardless of units used. If you were using a graph showing the inverse centimetre units, you will wrongly think, Emittance (output) is increasing as the number rises, because you aren’t converting it back into energy (joules or watts).

This is why the NASA graph, IS UNFAITHFUL REPRESENTATION IN THE CONTEXT IT USED – I.E.PLANETARY EMISSIONS AND ABSORPTION OF SAID EMISSIONS. Its fake peak, misleads everyone, including experts (or people who think they are experts.)

Now you should be aware, that you do not calculate band radiance at a specific point, you calculate across two points, such as my first table. This is because of the shape of the black body spectrum makes each point at each temperature different.

Fakers Climate Crisis claptrap alarmists, manipulate graphs and data to take advantage of your weakness, lack of knowledge and inability to perform the mental leaps required to overcome the deception that they are imposing upon you when telling the lies of the climate claptrap agenda, in order to trick you.

The Wavenumber graph has been deliberately selected for use, as it is far harder to understand and ordinary people on the street, do not have the training, knowledge or experience to see through the lies. This is how the Climate Claptrap science operates, it is all Charlatan mirrors & tricks.

*PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. *

## Zoe Phin

| #

Why’d you double down?

“For a 294k Black body emission spectra, the peak emittance occurs at 9.8563 um or 1014.58 cm-1”

Everyone can see from your charts that the peak is not 1014.58. You have wavenumbers that exceed the specral radiance at 1014.58.

You show this fact. What was the point?

The peak is ~577 cm-1

## Geraint Hughes

| #

Zoe clearly cant read.

## geran

| #

Keep it coming, Geraint!

A couple here still don’t get it.

## Bush bunny

| #

Several years ago my son (who is greener than green) despite I have degrees and diploma at University etc. Sent me a report from N.A.S.A. Where it stated global warming between late 1900s to early 2015 was 1.8 F I told him convert to centigrade and it works out to be -16.00 C Is that a mistake? That isn’t warming is it.? I think someone was botching the temps again.