Life is thermal

Revealing the fraud of the greenhouse

Shells — 17 augusti, 2017


Shell theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In classical mechanics, the shell theorem gives gravitational simplifications that can be applied to objects inside or outside a spherically symmetrical body. This theorem has particular application to astronomy.

Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem[1] and stated that:

  1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its centre.
  2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.

A corollary is that inside a solid sphere of constant density, the gravitational force varies linearly with distance from the centre, becoming zero by symmetry at the centre of mass. This can be seen as follows: take a point within such a sphere, at a distance r {\displaystyle r} r from the centre of the sphere. Then you can ignore all the shells of greater radius, according to the shell theorem. So, the remaining mass  m is proportional to r^{3}, and the gravitational force exerted on it is proportional to m/r^2, so to  r^3/r^2 =r, so is linear in r  r.

These results were important to Newton’s analysis of planetary motion; they are not immediately obvious, but they can be proven with calculus. (Alternatively, Gauss’s law for gravity offers a much simpler way to prove the same results.)

In addition to gravity, the shell theorem can also be used to describe the electric field generated by a static spherically symmetric charge density, or similarly for any other phenomenon that follows an inverse square law. The derivations below focus on gravity, but the results can easily be generalized to the electrostatic force. Moreover, the results can be generalized to the case of general ellipsoidal bodies.[2]


The addition of the volume to the shell is how I built my toy-model. It connects heat flow and gravity exactly. The bold text is an analogy of the heat current and the temperature gradient. The gravitational force acts  exactly  balanced towards the source of heat flow, which is the source of gravity. The force declines at a rate equal to the emissive power of heat. Gravitational energy seems to be exactly equal but acts in opposite direction to heat, which flows towards the ultimate heat sink in the vacuum.

If units of gravity are dimensioned as heat flow in a volume, their behaviour is identical.

Gravity then doesn´t depend on mass, it is equal to heat flow. Their center is ironically the same.

  1. ”If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object’s location within the shell.”

I replace ”no net gravitational force” with gravity and heat flow =0 in a spherical non interacting cavity. It also happens to be mass in the cavity, but it seems to make no difference.

I just fill out the unknown with the simplest ideal model of thermodynamic heat engines.

I added nothing, I used only geometry and proven thermodynamic principles. I introduce nothing new. It is built entirely on observation. The model produced solutions from the start.

Time —



In science, an effective theory is a scientific theory which proposes to describe a certain set of observations, but explicitly without the claim or implication that the mechanism employed in the theory has a direct counterpart in the actual causes of the observed phenomena to which the theory is fitted. I.e. the theory proposes to model a certain effect, without proposing to adequately model any of the causes which contribute to the effect.

Thus, an effective field theory is a theory which describes phenomena in solid-state physics”



I use an approach where I exclude time when I try to define physical relationships. The reason is that I want to understand the state I am observing. By excluding time I limit reality to what happens in the present, right now. The present consists of points of information about the forces and the energy that flows in the system, time tells us about the effects that is the result of the instantaneous state

Temperature is the measure of kinetic energy in a volume of mass. The kinetic energy is a product of thermal energy flowing through mass. A measure of temperature is a measure of the flow of heat in a point, to the surroundings. In relation to the surroundings, temperature is also a measure of transfer. Heat flows from mass at a temperature, with the power depending only on the emissive power which we measure as temperature. That is confirmed by the draper point in the observed fact that emission/heat flow observed as glow from a body of any solid, depend only on the temperature.

By eliminating time I stack transfer of heat on top of emissive power in the instantaneous state, and by doing so everything adds up.

The transfer of energy from a hotter temperature is determined by the emission from the receiver, so there is no action on a distance. The rate of transfer from the sun is determined by the emission of heat from the earth as it absorbs from a constant field. When earth rise in temperature, less solar heat is absorbed from transfer from the sun.  The system is in a vacuum so we know this is true.

I have been thinking about photons. Photons are said to be both waves and particles that exist outside mass. How can we know that?

Any measurement involves some form of matter, a device, an eye, a fluid, a solid…etc. Photons are only observed as some form of interaction between mass and the flow of energy in the surrounding field. No one has observed a photon outside of mass, like in space. Because a measurement in vacuum would require an introduction of mass by the instrument, and where there is mass there is no vacuum.

When a photon leaves the sun and enters vacuum it is unaffected by space and time until it encounters mass. This is equal to not exist in space and time. As a point of energy, photons arrive at a location where there is mass. When absorbed, the photon is destroyed when entering the mass/matter. This is where we can measure and observe, inside mass at the boundary. When it is destroyed it turns into heat/kinetic energy, a kind of micro-work. The heat then expands in three dimensions.

The difference between the point of energy entering the space-time of mass, and the expansion in the three-dimensional volume, is time. The size of expansion is determined by the intensity of the point-energy and the amount of time passed since the destruction of the photon. If the state of the treedimensional volume in relation to the point-energy signal is only time, doesn´t that mean that we have 1 dimension of power signal and three dimensions of time? Doesn´t that mean that any volume of mass at a temperature is threedimensional time expansion of points of photon energy?

That would mean space=time and not space+time. Originating in points of energy.

But I don´t know what to make of the vacuum. We have no direct information about it. Until I understand it I consider it as nothing. An assumption based on the relationship to the photon-energy travelling in the vacuum. That relationship is non-existing, nothing.

Temperature is a measure of flowing points of energy, different points of emissive power/kinetic energy. They are independent of space-time and mass. They only depend on the flow of energy, which is itself. Three dimensions of mass/time expands like ripples. Everything we observe are effects from the past, the expansion in time. Except the observation of temperature, where we measure the present state in a point and it includes all transfers of energy from and to the surroundings.

All flows of energy are simultaneously balanced on earth, because removing time makes everything add up.  I found it a bit hard to accept at first, that mass can be regarded as non-interacting on the heat flow. But the draper point says just that: emission from a solid depends only on the internal state measured as the temperature 798K(I know, there are exceptions, but they are irrelevant). The state of mass is determined by the heat flowing through a body while the heat flow depends on nothing.

But, what I write in this post is irrelevant. Only the numbers are relevant. Effective theory? I think instantaneous is more suitable. Or something. Blah, blah.





The Stefan-Boltzmann constant — 9 augusti, 2017

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant

When doing my calculations I mostly used a solar constant of 1361W/m^2. When I use the exact value of 1360.8W/m^2 given by NASA I realize that their measurements probably are very exact. 1360.8W is the mean value, total solar irradiance varies a bit during a year in orbit and the 11-year cycle. It was revised not so long ago due to some discovered problem in measurements, from about 1365.4W to the present value.

When taking a closer look at what the 4th power of temperature calculated with TSI is, I found that it isn´t a random number, it is

1360.8/0.0000000567=24 000 000 000

When transforming through the sphere it becomes 18 000 000 000

And 13 500 000 000 on the way to the surface.

The fourth power of surface temperature is 6 750 000 000

4/3g^2(tropopause mean emissive power) is 2 250 000 000

g^2 is 1 687 500 000.

From what I can see, that is not the case for Venus and Mars. But we might have similar problems in measurements of TSI there as well. It is surprising that we get such pure numbers from the power in watts which is with a decimal of .8 and a constant of 0.0000000567. I suspect the fourth power of Temperature is the ”real” value of power, and maybe it can be used to find solutions easier in physics. But lets get rid of all the zeros first, right?

And, well done NASA! Good work in measuring.

Co2 and heat — 1 augusti, 2017

Co2 and heat

When I started to get interested in the physics of climate science I was driven by a need to understand why our planet`s temperature is determined by a minute fraction of gas. which was portrayed as more powerful than the sun`s heat. I found it unreasonable, like many others, that a trace gas in a low density gas volume could be so powerful that it could cause catastrophe.

I used to be a liberal person, I had a long period of hippie-lifestyle behind me. I can admit that I was aggressive about the absolute necessity of regulating human behaviour towards a more nature friendly way of life, way before it was the mainstream consensus. I didn´t believe in technological solutions with green energy, I was convinced civilization should be torn down.  I was alarmist long before most people.

I am today a realist in a paranoid world where everyone thinks that the greatest threat is dry ice in cold air, more so than Islamists leaning on texts filled with first millenia violence, anti-semitism which makes Hitler look like a pink my little pony.

Until a few years ago, I agreed that our priority was to make sure our habitat is saved from emissions of co2 and the inevitable burning hell it will cause.

But studying physics on a basic level 15 years ago got in the way. I started to read about the mechanisms behind it all. Because I couldn´t get a grip on how it related to my vague memories of heat transfer and radiation. Perfect, I thought, I had been looking for a reason to invest some time into refreshing my knowledge about physics. I love physics, it´s the closest to truth I have gotten in my life. It is the only thing I experienced as bullshit-proof, and I was sad about the fact that I had lost almost all of it. I was pretty good at math and applying it to reality once, although only on a basic level. Nothing has satisfied me like math and physics, and how it describes reality with clarity. The definition of climate science is lack of clarity.

I started searching in the literature for the foundations of the explanation of climate centered around co2. First I looked at the gradient in the atmosphere and immediately I realized that it is all wrong. I admit that I knew so little about the atmosphere that when reading that the mean temperature is -18C in the troposphere, it was news to me. At that moment I knew that someone had made a (deliberate?) mistake, someone is really stupid. A cold fluid can´t increase the temperature of its own heat source. A child knows that, because they have nerves that tell them about hot and cold from birth. But apparently climate scientist have some problems with understanding this. Or I had missed something. To make sure, I started searching the literature for studies on co2 in controlled environments. There is no lack of such studies and I read as much as I could manage in about one years time. Studies on jet engines, furnaces, ovens, fires burning in open air and other engineering-stuff where data is presented from observations in reality. From descriptions of simplified greenhouse physics of heat, via detailed descriptions of heat transfer in industrial settings where fuel is burned in an enclosure. Swinging mood was caused when going through the psychological torture of reading some papers written by defect greenhouse-brains, then experiencing bliss when reading papers by extremely careful scientists like Hottel. I read all the way through a century of successfully applied thermodynamics. ending up with the well known experiments made by Tyndall. I wish I had made notes, it would have been a nice paper with a bible of references.

The background for it all is what we hear from climate science, that the solid mass of our planet that consist of a very thin shell that we call crust, which surrounds a massive glowing ball with temperatures in the range from 6000K to a very small fraction of it´s mass which is about 300K and located at the outer edge, is mainly heated by a fraction of the surrounding -18C gas.

It is claimed that a low density volume of gas, which is the coldest part of the system by far, is the cause of the solid surface of the glowing ball to have a temperature above what the heat source, a star, and the glowing interior that is 99% of the planets mass, can accomplish by themselves without that -18C volume of water vapor, co2 and other gases.

It is claimed that the cold air, heated by the 33 degrees warmer surface crust, is heating it´s own heat source.

Nowhere in the literature, in theory or experimental data, can there be found a single sentence, any observation, data or calculation which gives support for the claim that adding co2 or air to a heat source will cause an increase in emissive power of the heat source. Nowhere outside of the greenhouse theory and climate theory, does it exist any observation or theory  which supports the claim that heating a cold gas with constant and limited heat flow will cause an increasing temperature of the heat source, or an increasing density of the heat flow. It is a mystery how a theory and a global alarm about future catastrophic events, is aggressively spread and forced upon governments through deals about restrictions and regulations in our use of fossile energy, and not a single person within politics or science has bothered to even take a look a the foundation of it all. Which is that the layer of cold fluid surrounding a glowing planet heated by a 6000K star, is a cause of increasing temperature. Hottel didn´t say it, Boltzmann would probably kick you in the nuts if he heard you say it, not a single textbook on physics say it, if it is not a separate description of the greenhouse or climate science.

This is… the biggest deception in human history. It doesn´t matter if its intentional or if stupidity is at work,  the people promoting it needs to be put in front of a court of law. They need to be held responsible for lying to an entire world, or for being extremely stupid and incompetent.

The moon — 31 juli, 2017

The moon

I never bothered to take a look, but thought it should be easy. Probably a single shell sphere, right?

So for mean surface temperature radiated with inverse square law:


And, yep, that was it. Gravity is harder though, probably because it is bound to earth. Will have to think more about that.

Some people are lucky — 27 juli, 2017

Some people are lucky

Because some people don´t go to work driving a forklift. Some people go to work doing this:

Sometimes I want to become a criminal, because in my country you can go to jail and get a degree. I wonder what crime I should do to get enough jail time  to get qualified to do the kind of stuff in the link. Unfortunately, I believe in being a good guy, which limits the types of crime I am willing to do. Bankrobbery would be a good one, banks deserve everything bad that happens to them. But causing psychological trauma to workers on the floor would eat me up. And I guess there is no cash in bank-offices nowadays, so I would look stupid. Nah, f*ck it. I´ll keep moving pallets for a while, it´s easy money. But, damn! I would like to spend my days on physics.

Back to the linked science, they connect temperature gradients, gravity and electric current. A nice trinity, isn´t it? Almost like a father(electricity), a son(temperature) and a holy ghost(gravity). Don´t get me wrong, I left religion a long time ago. But I think this trinity is all there is. We have all the solutions already. Just put them together as pieces of a puzzle. In my experience, it´s not much harder than this:


So I look for pieces on the table, instead of imagining pieces with added dimensions or new pieces like ”gravitons” or stuff from accelerators, like ”god-particles”. I am not saying they don´t exist, I´m just saying that I don´t think they are necessary, or even relevant, for completing our model of reality. In my mind, that stuff is about the hue of yellow on the eskimo´s nice suit, and thermal physics is the table that we put the puzzle-pieces on.

At the moment I am reading this:

Electric discharges, waves and impulses… and other transients.

The ”other transients” part of the title holds some meaning. This book is full of clues. I see a pretty complete description of reality in there. I really love reading old texts on physics. They are so much better than what we see today. Very basic, very relevant, very realistic. Most of them are free of unicorns living in 11 dimensions with photon-blankets. I recommend.



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 decceleration 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, Gauss gravity… — 21 juni, 2017

Electric field equations, Gaussian surface, Gauss gravity…

This thing seems to never end. Constantly new insights and conclusions. After succesful application of the model on Mars and Venus, I have just been 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(heat) 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.



(Mistake above, it should be ½TSI=4/3T⁴=4g²+4/3g²)


Earth mean surface temperature = sigmaT^4=4g^2 and 4/3*g^2=mean tropopause temperature as emissive power

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.

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. .

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, but irradiation is only on the hemisphere 2(πr²).

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 directly 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.

Now we get to the surprising part. I did not expect to find this.

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, the missing heat which according to the first law must be work, is found to be equal to the force of gravity. Also, when comparing source strength, it equals exactly the emissive power of the earth 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 it seems to be a simple problem to solve. I´m not fully comfortable with this calculation, but it could maybe be improved with closer study of data on subsurface stratification.




Greenhouse effect? A cold fluid that heats it´s own glowing heat source by being wet and cold? How is that different to delusion? Since when does a 15C surface get hotter from -18C fluid packed with water vapor and a small fraction dry ice?

Climate scientists promoting co2-driven alarmist models are the Islamic State of science. The deceptive behaviour, manipulation of data, hiding of data, lying and oppressing sceptic voices with personal attacks and unscientific references to consensus-bullshit, is repulsive and unmatched in history. It´s about time they are held responsible for their abuse of public trust.

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