The Diurnal Bulge and the fallacies of the "Greenhouse Effect"

The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

The main fallacies in the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis are :-

A) That the atmosphere is transparent to visible light and also IR, except for "greenhouse gases" which are opaque to IR and block this kind of radiation on its way out into space like glass in a greenhouse, hence the term "greenhouse effect".

B) That glass, such as is used in greenhouses, is opaque to infra-red and blocks incoming IR from entering a greenhouse. The visible light (short wave radiation) passes through the glass and is absorbed by the ground inside the greenhouse which is then re-emitted as IR (long wave radiation) which then in-turn becomes trapped inside the greenhouse by the opacity of the glass to infra-red.

C) That re-emitted IR from the ground inside the greenhouse is the only mechanism responsible for raising the temperature of the air inside a greenhouse. That this process is not only how a greenhouse works but is also how the atmosphere is heated.

In-order for the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis to achieve the status of a theory, let alone established scientific fact, these points must be confirmed and verified.

Yet the "Greenhouse Effect" remains a hypothesis and has remained so for almost 200 years. To shed some light on why that might be the case we can go through the above points one at a time to ascertain one way or another, why the 'Greenhouse Effect' hypothesis, after almost two centuries since it was first proposed by Joseph Fourier, still remains an awkward hypothesis, still awaiting scientific verification.

Beginning with

A) That the atmosphere is transparent to visible light and also IR, but a small percentage of "greenhouse gases" are opaque to IR and block it on its way out into space like glass in a greenhouse, hence the term "greenhouse effect".

Is the atmosphere transparent to visible light? The answer to that is YES and NO. Certainly there is a lot of light which passes straight through the atmosphere but does that mean that all visible light is passing through the atmosphere? To answer this question we simply need to look at shadows.

If the atmosphere was actually transparent to visible light, shadows would appear black. But a shadow is never black. In-fact the difference between an area of ground in direct sunlight and an adjacent area in shadow is not much different to the light levels you would find on a cloudy day when practically no visible shadows are being cast. This indicates that the atmosphere as a whole has a similar ability to diffuse light as do clouds. The fact that anything in shadow on a bright sunny day is clearly visible and colours are still obvious, is evidence that the atmosphere absorbs and diffuses almost as much incoming short wave electromagnetic energy as clouds do on an overcast day.

The important thing to bare in mind is diffusion. When a photon of light collides with an air molecule, it's direction of travel will be randomly altered. This has the effect of reducing the overall watts/m2 reaching the ground because the collision between the molecule of air and the photon of light not only has the potential to alter the direction the photon is traveling, but the molecules also absorb some of that energy from the photon which causes the gas molecule to vibrate and become heated. The energy of the light photon is then somewhat diminished. This is partly why diffused light which illuminates the shadows, or the indirect diffused light received on cloudy days, is not as bright and powerful as direct sunlight. A certain amount of the incoming electromagnetic energy is transferred to the atmosphere via diffusion which could also be referred to as, scattering, absorption and re-emission but more accurately this process is simply energy transmission.

The exchange between the photon and the molecule provides energy to the atoms in the gas molecule. As the light photons are traveling at light speed, a certain amount energy in the form of momentum can also be exchanged. This causes the molecules to move around and bump into other molecules and so on. At any given moment there are molecules which are being struck by light photons and there are others which are not. Those molecules that have not will in-turn receive energy from those that have but this indirect or diffused energy will be less powerful than the direct solar energy. This process is continued on at the speed of light, transmitting the Sun's energy through the atmosphere, a process which is generally referred to as entropy. But as energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it must therefore be transmitted entropically and then ultimately returned back to space. The second law of thermodynamics states that energy must be transmitted from high to low energy states or from hot to cold. But it is not just thermodynamics where we see such phenomena. If you take two objects of similar mass, and bring them together at different speeds, the fastest moving object will always transfer more energy to the slower moving object. The equation E = mc2 teaches us that energy can manifest as mass, momentum, heat and also electromagnetic radiation (light).

There are only three kinds of energy transmission.

Radiation, Conduction, and Convection.

Convection is the result of the buoyancy of heated/expanding fluids (liquids or gases). Convection is entirely interdependent upon radiation and conduction. Without either radiation and/or conduction there can be no convection. Convection then is not really a form of energy transmission as such, it is more accurately a form of energy transportation. Through forces of buoyancy, convection transports large amounts of energy through liquids and gases. Convection then is only applicable in fluids and must be accompanied by radiation, conduction or both.

Conduction is a physical form of energy transmission which is kinetic in nature. Conduction is the transfer of kinetic energy or motion in molecules. It is a form of energy transmission normally associated with solids. Atoms and molecules in solids generally exchange energy kinetically. All solar energy transmitted by air molecules via conduction originates from radiation for two specific reasons. Firstly, all solar energy coming into the Earths system does so as electromagnetic radiation. Secondly, air is a poor conductor of heat. It is in-fact a top insulator.

See link:


Low powered long wave radiant heat transfer from two dimensional surfaces to three dimensional gases via conduction requires plenty of air movement because heat can only be transmitted to the first few millimeters of adjacent air conductively before convection occurs.
This process is a very slow and inefficient form of energy transfer. Conduction in this respect then is a consequence of radiation. Without the Suns electromagnetic radiation there can be no energy to conduct.

All incoming energy arrives in the form of electromagnetic radiation, more than 50% of which is actually in the Infra-red part of the spectrum. If the atmosphere was really transparent to incoming electromagnetic radiation, as is claimed, then among other things, all shadows would actually appear black. The degree to which areas in shadow on cloudless days are as clearly visible as they are on overcast days when there are no distinguishably visible shadows, is evidence of the atmosphere's transmission (diffusion, scattering, absorption and re-emission or gas-to-gas radiative energy exchange) of electromagnetic energy. 

The fact that shadows have a full spectrum of colour proves that the atmosphere diffuses the full spectrum of visible incoming electromagnetic energy. Diffusion of incoming electromagnetic energy is in-fact absorption and re-emission. In order for air to diffuse light, air molecules must absorb the light photons and then re-emit those photons in random directions. The more of the available light diffused or absorbed and re-emitted, the lighter the shadows will be.

The argument from the AGW fraudsters is that O2 and N2 are "IR inactive", or in other words that these two gases are transparent to infra-red. But it must be remembered that all substances with a temperature above 0 K emit IR at light speed. In order to maintain a certain temperature above 0 K a substance must acquire energy at the same rate as it looses it. Therefore there can be no substances which are transparent to IR. To claim anything to the contrary is an outrageous and deliberate fraud.


“All matter--animate or inanimate, liquid, solid, or gas--constantly exchanges thermal energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation with its surroundings. If there is a temperature difference between the object in question and its surroundings, there will be a net energy transfer in the form of heat; a colder object will be warmed at the expense of its surroundings, a warmer object cooled. And if the object in question is at the same temperature as its surrounding, the net radiation energy exchange will be zero.”

“In either case, the characteristic spectrum of the radiation depends on the object and its surroundings' absolute temperatures. The topic of radiation thermometry for example, or more generally, non-contact temperature measurement, involves taking advantage of this radiation dependence on temperature to measure the temperature of objects and masses without the need for direct contact.”

“The development of the mathematical relationships to describe radiation were a major step in the development of modern radiation thermometry theory. The ability to quantify radiant energy comes, appropriately enough, from Planck's quantum theory.”

If atmospheric O2 and N2 really were "IR inactive", as some have claimed, neither would be able to obtain enough energy to become gases in the first place. Proponents of AGW get around this by claiming that Oxygen and Nitrogen are warmed by conduction with the surface of the Earth. One of the main problems with such a claim is that most of the Earths surface is covered with oceans which mostly remove energy from the atmosphere by conduction. There aren't many regions on Earth where you can swim in the sea to get warm for example, which indicates that the atmosphere at most locations on Earth, is usually warmer than the oceans. So this only leaves less than 30% of the surface of the Earth with the possibility to conduct heat to the atmosphere. Another problem is the fact that air is a top insulator and therefore a poor conductor of energy. These points mean that energy being transmitted from the Earths surface to the atmosphere via conduction is limited to at best 30% of this two dimensional surface, with only the first few millimeters of air in contact, actually receiving energy slowly via conduction.

The radiant heat emitting surface of the atmosphere however, which essentially begins at around cloud level as far as infra-red emission is concerned, is a much larger sphere. Not only is it much larger but it emits IR from 100% of its surface area. Most importantly of all, it's heat emitting surface area is three dimensional as opposed to the two dimensional surface of the Earth. Finally when the atmosphere transmits energy to space, it does so at the speed of light in the form of infra-red radiation as opposed to the much slower process of conductive heat transfer from the Earths surface.

Therefore it is not possible that 99% of the atmosphere (O2 and N2) is heated slowly via conduction by less than 30% of the Earths two dimensional surface. This process could never keep pace with the energy being emitted by 100% of the much larger three dimensional surface, emitting energy at the speed of light. If "bottom up" conductive heat transfer were the only mechanism warming 99% of the atmosphere then the atmosphere would freeze because as we have seen this mechanism would clearly be net negative.

We can hereby conclude from the above that the term "non-participating gas" is a fallacy which is nothing more than a tool of AGW fraud.

So if the atmosphere is not heated via "bottom up" conductive energy transfer, as is required by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis, how is it heated? To begin to answer this I will now look at the next claim .

B) That glass, such as in a greenhouse, is opaque to IR and blocks it from entering a greenhouse, the visible light (short wave radiation) passes through the glass and is absorbed by the ground inside the greenhouse and then re-emitted as IR (long wave radiation) which is then trapped inside by the glass by the same opacity of glass which keeps incoming IR from entering the greenhouse.

This is a critical point and worth reiterating. It is claimed that a greenhouse works because glass is opaque to infrared and blocks it in both directions. Then visible light absorbed by the ground inside the greenhouse is re-emitted as IR inside and is trapped and prevented from leaving again by the IR opaque glass. The implication that the air inside the greenhouse is heated from the ground up and from within the enclosure itself is crucial to the atmospheric 'Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis. If this were not the case then the air inside the greenhouse must be heated directly via incoming Sunlight and therefore why would that be any different in the atmosphere. So the opacity of glass is crucial and even central, to the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis.

So firstly, is it really the case that glass is opaque to IR and therefore blocks IR from entering a greenhouse in the first place?

Figure 1 is a photograph of a wine glass taken in total darkness with an infra-red camera. The source of infra-red light is a low powered built-in infra-red light on the camera. Even so, the weak infra-red light is able to pass through the glass making the glass appear transparent and certainly not opaque. The shadow is caused by diffusion, absorption and re-emission or more accurately transmission, of some of the IR in random directions by the molecules in the glass.

Figure 1:

Glass IR



In figure 2 the light source is a 60 watt incandescent light bulb. Again the glass casts a shadow on the wall. In this photo the shadow is not as dark, partly because the light source passing through the glass is more intense and partly because there is more energy available form the source, for diffusion by the surrounding air. In both cases the shadow being cast on the wall is a result of light scattering, diffusion or more accurately energy transmission through the glass.

Figure 2:

Glass SW


These two photographs prove conclusively that glass is not opaque to infra-red radiation, as is required by the "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis. Another simple test which can also be done to prove this point is to cover an infra-red sensor on a any security light with some glass and test to see if it still picks up your body heat and switches the light on. It will work just fine with no noticeable difference.

The word opacity is one of those words that can have double meaning. It can be used to describe something which is not transparent to light i.e.. reflective or something which absorbs light. When used to describe glass it can be especially confusing because as we have seen, glass can absorb and re-emit electromagnetic energy (light) and yet appears transparent to light at the same time. The key point to remember is this: Glass molecules will absorb and re-emit part of the Sunlight (electromagnetic energy) that passes through. But because the energy absorbed, is reemitted in a random direction, some will be re-emitted through the glass and some will be re-emitted in other directions altogether. As we can see from the photographs above, it doesn't matter whether the light is visible or infra-red, it is a similar case for the full spectrum of electromagnetic energy. The shadows which appear on the wall in both pictures are caused by the portion of the light which has been absorbed and re-emitted in a different direction. In other words, the shadows are caused by the light which is missing. Proof that glass is not as transparent as it looks and yet, not as opaque to IR as is claimed.

The fallacious claim that glass is opaque to IR is not just a sloppy mistake, it is a 150 year old brazen lie. The implications are very serious because without this false opacity of glass to infra-red radiation, the so called "Greenhouse Effect" attributed to greenhouses is false. If the "Greenhouse Effect" of greenhouses is false then the "Greenhouse Effect" of the so called 'Greenhouse Gases' in the atmosphere must also be false.

For further confirmation of the fallacy of this so called "Greenhouse Effect" we can now look at point.

C) That re-emitted IR from the ground inside the greenhouse is the only mechanism responsible for raising the temperature of the air inside a greenhouse. This process is not only how a greenhouse works, it is also how the atmosphere is heated.

Is there any truth in this claim? To find the answer to this all we need do is ask another question; If a greenhouse crop produces a full canopy, shielding the ground completely from direct Sunlight and at the same time absorbing much of the incoming short-wave energy into the leaves and locking much of that energy away in the process of photosynthesis, will the greenhouse cease to function? Because the direct sunlight cannot be absorbed by the ground, will the 'Greenhouse Effect' become neutralised?

The answer of course is that a greenhouse will not cease to function. The air inside a greenhouse will still be warmer than the air outside, even if the greenhouse in question is packed full of plants, producing a full canopy of leaves, shielding the ground from incoming sunlight. In fact there will be little difference in temperature, if any, than if the greenhouse was completely empty. Much of the energy absorbed by the leaves of the plants themselves, is utilised by the plants for photosynthesis. This energy is locked away in the plant matter. It is energy that has been removed from the system. If the greenhouse is growing tomatoes for example, then the energy absorbed by the tomato plants cannot be released until the tomatoes are eaten and the leaves and stems have all rotted away and 100% of that matter is returned to environment as heat. This could take anywhere between minutes or in such phenomena as fossilization, perhaps never. The fact that a greenhouse with a full canopy of leaves still gets as warm as an empty greenhouse is another piece of evidence which indicates that air in a greenhouse is not just heated by re-emitted IR from the ground inside (an unavoidable side effect of the absorption of solar energy) but mostly by incoming full spectrum Solar energy which consists of more than 50% infra-red energy.

As this is clearly the case for greenhouses, it follows that the same must also be the case for the atmosphere. For example, the following is the now infamous Kiehl and Trenbirth 1997: Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget diagram. In it we are told that the total Wm-2 of incoming solar energy is 342 Wm-2. We are also told that the total outgoing long-wave radiation (heat) is 235 Wm-2 and the reflected is 107 Wm-2 which of course adds up to 342 Wm-2. The figure 342 Wm-2 comes from the claim that at TOA ( top of atmosphere ) a flat surface with an orientation perpendicular to the Sun would receive 1364 Wm-2. The figure 342 Wm-2 is derived from 1364 Wm-2 averaged over the entire atmosphere which is simply divided by 4. Also worth baring in mind is that this figure of 1364 Wm-2 is also given for the surface of the Moon. The Insolation or TSI at sea level however is approximately at a maximum of 1000 Wm-2. This means that the atmosphere diffuses or more accurately transmits somewhere in the region of 364 Wm-2 between TOA, which is actually not TOA at all but a mere 30 kilometers up, and sea level. Looking more closely at this diagram you will see that this figure of 364 Wm-2 is the same as the back radiation minus the 40 Wm-2 that is shown going through the fictitious "atmospheric window". The imaginary back-radiation, the so called "Greenhouse Effect" is actually the energy which is missing between the TOA 30 km altitude and sea level. This energy is the incoming electromagnetic energy which is absorbed and diffused by the last 30 km of the atmosphere and is energy which goes into heating the atmosphere.

Figure 3:


The Earth's annual and global mean energy balance. Of the incoming solar radiation, 49% (168 Wm-2) is absorbed by the surface. That heat is returned to the atmosphere as sensible heat, as evapotranspiration (latent heat) and as thermal infrared radiation. Most of this radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, which in turn emits radiation both up and down. The radiation lost to space comes from cloud tops and atmospheric regions much colder than the surface. This causes a greenhouse effect. Source: Kiehl and Trenberth, 1997: Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78, 197-208.


The fraud in this diagram is that it was clearly designed to support the fallacious notion that the Earth is being warmed by the energy leaving the system. Nothing is warmed by the energy it loses. Things can only be warmed by the energy they receive. Things are cooled by the energy they loose, not warmed. The reverse logic of AGW and the so called "Greenhouse Effect" is that the atmosphere is warmed by outgoing energy instead of incoming energy. The fallacy in this logic is of course that when energy is lost it has a cooling effect not a warming effect. But the AGW logic has flipped reality upside-down so that atmospheric warming is caused by the energy being lost to space which is really in actual fact, cooling.

The most obvious clue that this graph is fraudulent is the fact that the incoming and outgoing energy have been set as equal or balanced. This is not a true energy budget of the Earth at all. The incoming and out going energy of the Earth is most certainly not balanced. This graph is a depiction of a dead planet. It fails to account for the energy which is locked away by the biosphere. It does not account for the energy which is locked in by life on Earth. The flora and fauna which trap and convert vast amounts of energy and convert that energy into matter is completely missing. It fails to account for the energy which over billions of years has been locked away deep in the Earths crust. The energy consumed in the production of oil, coal, peat, fossils, limestone and on and on. This graph makes a mockery of science and natural philosophy and should be considered as the icon of Post Normal Science bullshit.

There are two main reasons why the inside a greenhouse becomes warmer than the surrounding ambient air outside. Firstly and most obviously the glass prevents the warmed air inside from rising under convection and being replaced by cooler, less buoyant air as would normally happen outside.

Secondly any energy which is being diffused in spherically random directions by the gas molecules inside a greenhouse has a higher probability of being re-absorbed by adjacent molecules within that three dimensional space, than being re-emitted back through the glass. The warmed air molecules must form part of the inverse temperature gradient within the greenhouse in order to increase the probability that they will transmit energy back out through the two dimensional glass barrier at the top. The warmer the gas molecules become, the closer they move towards the top of the greenhouse and the greater the chance that they will emit their energy in the direction of the two dimensional barrier of the glass. It is this probability factor coupled with the internal inverse temperature gradient which forms the energy bottleneck within the greenhouse and together with the inhibition of convection combine to raise the temperature within. Equilibrium is achieved because the warmer the air becomes, the higher the probability of emission through the two dimensional glass will be, as the warm air must rise to the top. Therefore the greenhouse does not over heat and equilibrium is achieved.

In the official bogus "Greenhouse" theory with the "opaque to IR" glass, there is no stated mechanism by which a greenhouse can achieve equilibrium because as long as there is daylight, the ground will absorb SW energy and re-emit that as LW energy and the "greenhouse gases" will continue to absorb. This is explained away by the use of other fallacious terms such as "non-participating gases" and "logarithmic absorption". The sticking point with such fallacies is simply that any substance above 0 K is emitting IR. Infra-red is emitted at the speed of light. If a substance emits energy at the speed of light, it must be absorbing energy at the speed of light because if it were not then the "energy budget" for that substance would be net negative and the substance in question would quickly become frozen. This has been substantiated by experiments with solar ovens, which show how they can be used to make ice as well as cook food.

Logarithmic absorption by "Greenhouse Gases" is simply another device employed by the AGW fraud wizards to confuse the unsuspecting, it cannot be applied to a variable energy source such as the Sun.

The main purpose of all the fallacies of the so called "Greenhouse Effect" are to implicate "Greenhouse Gases" or rather CO2 as the main culprit for atmospheric warming. Yet in two hundred years, not once has the "Greenhouse Effect" been demonstrated by experiment. It surely cannot be all that difficult to take two identical greenhouses on a bright sunny day and pump one full of CO2 with the expectation of observing a dramatic warming bias. The reason for that failure is quite simply that the 'Greenhouse Effect' is a fraud.

The pictures below demonstrate how simple it should be to show the "Greenhouse Effect" experimentally. Plastic greenhouses work just as well as glass ones. The size is not important either because as we know greenhouses come in all different shapes and sizes. These bottles are to all intents and purposes, mini greenhouses. The one on the right contains ordinary air and tap water and the one the left sparkling mineral water vigorously shaken to produce enough pure CO2 to fill the container.

These thermometers, the backs of which are shaded from direct incoming Sunlight with aluminium foil, read as follows :-

Brown - Green 0 Blue +

Figure 4:


After one hour in a south facing window at around 3 pm on a late January afternoon, in Southern UK, the results in figure 4 and 5 are quite clear.

Figure 5:


CO2 is approximately 1º C cooler than ordinary air.

Figure 6:



And again 1º C cooler. In the many variations on this experiment which I have conducted I cannot produce a result in favor of CO2.


Again, clearly the reason that the "Greenhouse Effect" has yet to be demonstrated with such a simple experiment is because it is false. In these simple tests and many similar tests that I have carried out, pure CO2 is always cooler than air by at least 1º C. That is because weight for weight, CO2 has a lower specific heat capacity than Air, Oxygen and Nitrogen,

As is shown at the following link:



Statistical thermodynamics says that "temperature" is not really defined for individual molecules, but rather is a property associated with large collections of atoms and molecules vibrating and (in the case of fluids/gases) colliding with each other.

Any substance which is above 0 K will emit IR. A substance which emits IR must also absorb IR. You cannot have emission without equal absorption without producing a net negative energy flow. A net negative energy flow is called a freezer.

So to come full circle, if 99% of the atmosphere was made up of so called 'non participating' gases which could only obtain their energy slowly via conduction with less than 30% of the Earths two dimensional surface, yet at the same time re-emits all of this energy at the speed of light from 100% of the much larger (and hundreds of kilometers deep) three dimensional surface of the atmosphere then the Earth's energy budget would be massively net negative and the planet and atmosphere would be frozen solid.

So is there any further evidence that the atmosphere is heated by incoming electromagnetic energy? What would be the most obvious clue that the atmosphere, an ocean of gases, is actually heated, top down by incoming Solar energy?

After all what happens to a gas when it is rapidly heated? It expands doesn't it? So what we are looking for is the rapid expansion of the gases in the atmosphere under the most powerful source of energy, the bright star at the center of our Solar system, our Sun. If the atmosphere truly is heated from the top down, we will find, at the point at which the disk of light from the Sun is incident on the atmosphere, perhaps, a bulge in the atmosphere caused by rapidly heated and expanding gases.

This final piece of evidence is the smoking gun evidence which not only establishes that the atmosphere is heated from the top down, but that the bottom up "greenhouse effect" hypothesis is the direct result of a conspiracy by a large group within the scientific community to commit AGW fraud. A crime against the ordinary people of the entire world. A fraud which would directly and substantially effect the lives of every one but the very rich. A crime which would enable the rich to trade our human rights to emit CO2 like a commodity on the stock market. A modern day slave trade which would have in effect turned all but the very wealthy few into carbon slaves, effectively shackling billions of humans for generations into the future.

The smoking gun, incontrovertible evidence that the atmosphere is indeed heated from the top down is called the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge.

As you would expect to see with a gas being rapidly heated from above, the atmosphere has a massive bulge which appears near or at the equator, depending on the time of year. This atmospheric bulge tracks the Sun across the sky with a maximum peak height at 2 p.m. at any given longitude. The temperatures at the center of this atmospheric bulge are in the region of some 1200 º or more at an altitude of approximately 600 kilometers. The diurnal bulge as it is known, tracks our Sun across the sky, at or near to the equator. This giant bulge of rapidly heated and expanding gases displays slight elongation towards the poles. The elongation is most likely the result of intense ionization caused by the rapid heating of the air by electromagnetic energy. The ionization is a process which electrically charges the air molecules and imparts to these molecules a temporary di-pole moment which causes the air under this intense heating to become attracted towards the poles by their charged polarities, thus elongating the diurnal bulge towards both poles. The other interesting and relevant characteristic of this polarization, effectively producing temporary di-pole moments, is that the heat capacity of the gases is increased. For example water molecules have permanent dipole moments which are responsible for the high heat capacity of water as can be seen at the link to the engineering toolbox above.

The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge has been known to, and comprehensively studied by, NASA and world Governments in general since before the 1960's. It is extremely important and relevant to the deployment of satellites for the simple reason that if this giant atmospheric bulge of rapidly heated and expanding gases, is not accounted for by orbiting satellites then as they pass through the bulge, the atmospheric drag will knock the craft out of perpetual free-falling orbit and bring it crashing back to Earth. The Governments of the world and the various space agencies such as NASA have conspired to stay quiet about the Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge for one simple reason. AGW fraud. Remaining silent about information which you know would have prevented a fraud from taking place, makes you complicit in that fraud, in the eyes of the law.

The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge is a giant ball of rapidly heated and expanding gases approximately in circumference the size of 1/4 of the entire Earths atmosphere. This giant bulge with temperatures reaching over 1200º C circles the Earth tracking the Sun across the sky, at or near the Equator. It is incontrovertible proof that it is the Sun and not "greenhouse gases" which is responsible for heating the whole atmosphere, via incoming electromagnetic radiation, from top to bottom, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.


Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge SOA/NASA ADS

The Earths atmosphere, which consists of 99% Oxygen and Nitrogen, is incontrivertably heated from the top down. There is no "Greenhouse Effect" in our atmosphere and therefore no "Greenhouse Gases". The concept is bogus and simply does not exist. It never has and it never will.

Richard Feynman said:  " It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

W R Pratt










CO2 The Debate Is Not Over.


by W.R.Pratt

Click to download free.

CO2 The Debate Is Not Over

Please make a donation and help me expose AGW fraud.

I am currently working on an update to CO2 The Debate Is Not Over. This update will contain further substantiating evidence exposing the fallacy of the so called greenhouse effect.

Please Email me with your comments:


Most recent

The Science Is Settled?


Blog articles

Ocean Acidification

Name One Substance That Traps Heat

Full Spectrum Dominance

Forget about data sets

No such thing as the “Greenhouse effect”

Global Not Warming!

The best evidence of global warming to date:

Positive proof of Global Warming



The specific heat capacity for Gases

Infrared absorption bands for OXYGEN

A close-up of an infrared absorption band for NITROGEN