Life is thermal

Revealing the fraud of the greenhouse

E=mc^2 — 10 juli, 2017


This is a short post, just to show something simple and beautiful.

Consider the earth surface with the mass m, being heated by the sun with radiation at the speed c while at the same time emitting radiation at the speed c:


Now, if I take the speed of light in km/s instead of m/s and divide by TSI/(4/3)^2 I get the emissive power of the surface. I discovered this a long time ago, but I am still working on what the cause could be for using km/s instead of m/s. Probably it has something to do with deceleration of light speed inside the atmosphere, but it is not clear to me how that would work. Are our units maybe wrong? Should Watts have three more zeros? Should the lightspeed have three less? Is lightspeed really a measure of speed? Or is it a measure of radial acceleration?

I have been thinking for a long time that we need to take Einsteins equation seriously. We need to accept that we are standing on a ball hurling through space at lightspeed, along with everything around us. I have a vague idea about heat being the product of newtonian force and counterforce, relative differences in speed. Relativity.

Heat may be the result of expansion meeting the resistance of space. But, that might imply that the sun doesn´t produce its radiation from self-induced fission and fusion, they are a product of friction. I have a strong feeling that we are not observing any causes, everything we see is an effect. Electricity makes more and more sense.

Electric field equations, Gaussian surface, Gaussian gravity… — 21 juni, 2017

Electric field equations, Gaussian surface, Gaussian gravity…

This thing seems to never end. Constantly new insights and conclusions. After succesful application of the model on Mars and Venus, I have been just browsing theories and physics educational webpages. I should mention that I am mostly homeschooled in physics, and I have a really bad teacher: myself. So I constantly search for more knowledge.

The equations used in the last post are exactly the same as for a sphere with a shell in an electric field. The effective radiation acts like a Gaussian surface and Gauss law of gravity fits in with this ”electric” field. I am leaning towards gravity being the equivalent of the magnetic field, but for electromagnetic radiation instead of current. Some people have been promoting the ”electric universe” as a better model of the universe. I don´t want to go all the way there, but it seems that they have a point.

The reason for this post is that I wasn´t fully satisfied with the calculations of the tropopause temperature, it was acceptable but a bit more off than the rest of the equations, and I knew that 1/3 of the surface temperature is an exact match to the tropopause temp. But I wanted to figure out why I needed another explanation than heat transfer, not just throwing in a number.

I try to steer away from assumptions, they seem to have a bad effect on theories. Assumptions in physics can be spotted when people start talking about dark matter, gravitons, 11 dimensions and other stuff which no one has ever observed anywhere. Much of it can´t even be expected to be observed, ever. Nowadays the whole universe has become a fantasy built with only fiction from a stack of assumptions that explains observations with only things that has never been observed. An odd approach for a science with the foundation in confirming theory only with observations, isn´t it?

I mean… dark matter? What? Who made that up?

Dark matter has never been observed, no one knows what it is, it is claimed to be much more powerful than everything we observe, it is supposed to be much larger than everything we observe, it is said to be everywhere in the universe although you can´t see it. A very problematic thing about dark matter, is that it is used to explain everything we don´t understand, but without answering anything. It is very unphysical and It sounds very familiar…

Now I remember. In church it is called God.

To avoid explanations including God, because including God is bad physics, I had another look. I found that Gauss gravity gave another interesting confirmation of the gravity-heat loop. It implies that the solar constant is only doing work on the system, and that emission is earth´s own property. Which confirms Prevosts conclusion that the emission depends on the internal state only. It also uses volume and the surface flux from the volume for gravity. It is a good support for my use of units in Nm^2 as a function of heating of a volume.



(Edit: I really hate to not have even a single person with enough knowledge to discuss these things, and look at what I write before I publish it. It causes all errors to be out in the open before I notice them myself. In the above equation it is supposed to be 1/2*TSI/(4/3).)



Earth behaves as it was located in an electrical field. It has a charged shell from ionization in the atmosphere, and a negative potential from the half-surface area irradiation that would be the gravity potential. Either heat and electricity is fully equal in their behaviour as separate expressions of energy in the universe, or earth is actually an electric body.

The inside of a cavity with a ball at the center when positioned in an electric field, is not part of the field. But it has a gaussian surface like earth has in the effective radiation. Thunderstorms in a new perspective. This is going to keep me up at night.


Just numbers, no blankets — 13 april, 2017

Just numbers, no blankets

Its weird that someone would say that earth is 33° “warmer than it should be”,  especially when they already reduced the amount of heat by 30% before the calculation started. My approach is that everything is exactly what it should be, and if someone says that there is heat coming from an ice-cold atmosphere, my first thought is that someone miscalculated. .

If we start by taking a look at the differences between the 2 dimensional spherical surface of the absorbing and emitting blackbody, and the 3 dimensional volume of Earth absorbing solar radiation.

To find the emitted intensity of the surface of the inner spherical shell, we need to account for absorption of the received intensity from solar irradiation, TSI, over the surface area of the disc that is the shadow of earth .

Then we need to account for absorption in depth of the volume within the system. Actually, two shells of concentric volumes needs to be accounted for. Atmosphere and solid earth, which gives:


Which is equal to a surface temperature of 286.6 Kelvin.

When the surface emission has been found, we can use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for radiative heat transfer from the solar constant to the surface:


But the the transferred heat from the solar constant must follow the same laws as the emitted radiation, so with the inverse square law we find:


Which gives us the effective temperature of 256.3 Kelvin.

If we use radiative heat transfer for the emitted intensity of the surface and the effective temperature:


We can see that it fits the temperature at the tropopause with satisfying accuracy.

The first transformation of solar radiation through the volume of the outer shell, using the full value of TSI, gives a result close to direct irradiation at zenith on the surface:


And using the solar constant and the effective temperature for radiative heat transfer to the system gives a good match to the total solar irradiation, direct and diffuse:


Both are logical results, as the transformation through the outer shell gives a value that should represent what arrives at the surface from the bottom of the volume of the atmosphere, and the heat transfer to the troposphere should include both what is diffused/scattered in that volume, and what arrives at the surface.

We now have a main structure of the system determined by only small modifications of the blackbody model, heat transfer and the inverse square law.

Finally, I want to address the difference between the emitted effective temperature, and the true blackbody temperature of a perfect absorber and emitter of the solar constant.

If we use the solar constant to find the effective temperature that should be emitted from a perfect blackbody, we get:


The difference is:


If the difference is assumed to be the amount of work performed by the system to keep the atmosphere in place, according to the first law of thermodynamics where deltaU=Q-W, we can use this for gravity. Consider gravity as the force that acts in a point at the center of mass in a parcel of air, that has a surface area of 1m², and the mass of 1kg, laying statically above the surface of Earth. The force acting in the point at the center of mass in that parcel of air is:


If we use units of Nm^2, that are used for thermal resistance, stress and pressure, the force acting on the surface of the parcel is:


The source strength of the body emitting the power needed to raise the force radiated into the surroundings of the source according to the inverse square law is:


The source strength matches the surface emission of heat in the model. The difference between the true blackbody intensity of earth and the effectively radiated intensity, and the missing heat in the emitted effective temperature is found to be equal to the force of gravity. It also balances the emitted intensity of heat from the surface.

The earth core is said to have a temperature of about 6000 kelvin, I assume that it has the same temperature as the surface of the sun.

If we use the same approach as for the surface and atmosphere, the internal layers decrease by 3/4 for each surface and another 3/4 for the volume above that surface, as heat travel from the core. If the core is 5780 Kelvin and there are 4 pairs of surfaces and volumes.




Greenhouse effect? Yeah, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. With unicorns and flying pigs, maybe he-man badgers and aura-photographing as well.

I think that we should stop making shit up, and use what we know is true.





There is one more way of doing it.


If we use the relationship:


There is another solution:15





Advanced measurements of bullshit — 27 mars, 2017

Advanced measurements of bullshit

In this post I will make a short description of pyrgeometers and IR-sensors that both use a thermopile as the fundamental mechanism for the function of the device. It will be clear to anyone interested that it cannot be used as proof for any radiative energy coming from a cold atmosphere that heats the earth surface.

In the blogposts over at scienceoffraud about radiation from the ass of the atmosphere, pyrgeometer measurements are used as proof of ”back-radiation”.

The thermopile (fig1) can be explained as a slightly more advanced thermometer with the difference that it measures a gradient across the material in the sensor, using a difference in voltage that depends on changes in conductivity arising from differences in the temperature of the material. It uses the difference to produce a value of heat transfer into, or out of, the device. In the case of the atmosphere it is a measured transfer from the device that is measured, the difference between the temperature of the device as a result of the surrounding temperature, to the temperature of the part exposed to the atmosphere.


Fig 1, composition of a thermopile


When used in a pyrgeometer, the device claimed to measure ”backradiation”, the thermopile is placed in a shell with a theremometer measuring the temperature of the device as a reference. The pyrgeometer is placed outside and according to Wikipedia it can at best have a range of 25 meters into the atmosphere above. In the device there is a thermopile measuring the gradient across itself as part of it is exposed to, and directed towards, the atmosphere above. The transfer of heat to the atmosphere above is calculated from the small gradient inside, that is assumed to continue into the atmosphere. In figure 2 the principle is shown for an IR-thermometer with a thermocouple inside. It is the same basic principle and here are the equations used for the function of device, shown below the picture.


Figure 2, the basic working principle for a IR-thermometer with the included equations.


In figure 3 we can see a section of a pyrgeometer and as you can see, there is nothing inside is capable of measuring IR-radiation over a distance in an atmosphere. To do that, you need a device for optical measurement, measuring photons and their wavelengths, not a net heat transfer “thermometer”.



Figure 3, a section drawing of a pyrgeometer


In figure 4 we can find a scetch of the working principle of the sensor body in the pyrgeometer, the thermopile. It is in Swedish but I think it is obvious what is shown. The text below translates as:

“The heat flow is determined by the small gradient caused, by the use of very sensitive thermo-elements. The energyflow of outgoing photons is calculated using the Stefan-Boltzmann law based on the sensorbodys measured temperature.”

In the drawing you can see red and blue arrows claimed to show in- and outgoing photons. This is not a correct description, logically it can only measure a gradient inside the sensor, as it doesn´t have any optical view beyond its own material. The blue arrows indicate what is implied as incoming photons, but in a situation where the temperature in the direction of measurement is lower than that of the device, there is only indirect indication of temperature-difference by the small internal gradient. What the device does is measure the heat transfer from the sensor, and then that difference is wrongfully claimed to be incoming radiation. I don´t say that there cannot be any incoming radiation, just that this device is definitely not capable of measuring it.



Figure 4, a drawing of the claimed measurement of incoming radiation from an atmosphere



When you see someone claiming that ”back-radiation” from the atmosphere is proven by measurements from IR-cameras or pyrgeometers, you know this person have no clue of what they are talking about. These are devices that have the “greenhouse effect” built into them, if you use them for atmospheric measurements from groundlevel. A thermopile is an excellent, sensitive device for use in other situations, but not to measure “back-radiation”, or “the ghost of the greenhouse” as I prefer to call it. To measure a small gradient over a thermopile and extend that measurement into the atmosphere claiming it to be a measurement of incoming photons, is distilled bullshit. Maybe a more refined form of bullshit, but nothing else than bullshit.


Have a nice day and don`t forget to use a lot of oil