Two halves make one whole!

Two halves make one whole!

Some things are so profoundly simple that it takes time for them to sink in. ‘Why is the sun able to heat the Earth?’ asks Alan Siddons in the first chapter of ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’. Because the Earth is colder. 

Have you taken that in? ‘Why is the Sun able to heat the Earth?’ Answer: Because the Earth is colder.

It seems so utterly simple, so obvious, and yet there are a whole raft of learned Professors and Scientists and savants, and journalists and politicians who do not, or who appear not, to understand this most simple proposition. Or, to be more exact, what follows from it.

Just imagine for one moment that the Earth was as hot as the Sun. Would the irradiance from the Sun then double the temperature on the Earth? Clearly not! Because if that were so the irradiance from the Earth would then double the heat of the Sun, which in turn would double the heat of the Earth, and with such incessant doubling we would all be hotter than Hell fire.

No. If the temperature of the Earth equalled that of the Sun, nothing whatsoever would happen.

Yet this is precisely what the Alarmist Warmers have failed to understand. Even some Skeptics fail this simple maths exam. They take it as simple arithmetic, plus a bit of arcane Physics regarding radiation and photons. I will come back to that later.

Here is an experiment. Take two calibrated jugs and fill them half full with warm water. Then empty the second jug into the first. Will you now get double the heat?  Better still if you fill the jugs with water at half the temperature of boiling point, 50° Celsius, and then pour the second into the first, will you then get boiling water at 100° Celsius?  Of course, you should. Two halves make one whole. Half a cake plus the other half makes a whole cake. The maths is irrefutable. Yet it does not work.  Where is the error?

It does not matter if you understand the maths or not, even a simpleton knows that there has to be a difference. If my cup of tea has stood a while and gone tepid, it is no good adding more that is also tepid. I boil up another kettle and add a little boiling water. A judicious addition will make the tea drinkable.

So now, let us come back to climate. The Alarmists argue that as the Sun heats the Earth, then the infrared photons bounce off the earth and the oceans and shoot back to Outer Space, but this infrared hits the molecules of Carbon Dioxide on the way which then radiate every which way, including downwards back to the Earth’s Surface. This then adds to the mean surface temperature of the Earth.

Hullo! Can this be right? This simple addition?

Sorry! This cannot be right. Only if these molecules were hotter than the Earth and Oceans, only then could this possibly be right. If these molecules were exactly the same temperature then there would be no difference, and ergo no difference would be made.  No difference whatsoever!

Once we add the Adiabatic Lapse Rate into the equation, once we realize the simple truth that the gases of the atmosphere get colder with altitude, then we know with absolute certainty that the whole theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not just flawed, but totally, absolutely and completely wrong.

Anthony Bright-Paul
September 2011

PS1:Further Questions for the Met and Climatic Research Unit

I have to admit that I am somewhat amused that the Met Office has so quickly passed the buck to the Climatic Research Unit. As a simple non-scientist I had expected to be quickly shot down in flames with some arcane Physics and to be told, as has happened before, to take a University Course in Physics. Unfortunately Times Wingéd Chariot hurries on and the spectre of the Great Reaper draws yet closer. So I am forced to ask simple questions of the soothsayers, without too much fear of having to drink hemlock.

Now my good friend David Eccles brought to my attention the difference between Heat and Temperature, which is very significant for us all. Why? Because what we are all concerned with is Temperature. The Met Office is clearly concerned with Temperature also, hence its forecasts. But when it writes about Climate Change its website says: –

This means the extra CO2 will trap more and more of the sun’s heat, and this will warm our climate.

Wait a second! I may not be a scientist, but I hope I have a modicum of logic. Leaving aside for a moment the opening statement that CO2 will ‘trap’ more of the sun’s heat, which is questionable, let us examine the conclusion – And this will warm our climate.

But will it? Yes, I grant you, it will, but only if the temperature of that heat is hotter than the temperature of the ground, or any surface. Clearly if the heat is only equal to what is already available, no increase in temperature could occur. This famous trapped heat would have to be hotter, would it not? Now if the trapped heat were cooler then nothing whatsoever could occur, except perhaps accelerated cooling.

Lets look at Standard Atmosphere again which I have amended to add Levels, and for which I am indebted in the first place to my friend in New Zealand, Husayn Rawlings.

Let us suppose for a moment that the Clausius statement is true and that heat, by itself, can only flow from hot to cold. Then it follows that the 2nd level cannot heat the 1st and the 8th cannot heat the 7th. Will the Met Office or the Climatic Research Unit dispute that? When we get to the 9th level at 8,000 feet there is no heat left so it appears.

Now I have heard it argued that photons from the Earths’ surface pick off these molecules of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, a bit like a Bofors gun, and that these molecules – and please remember that at 400 parts per million that would be only 1 molecule in 2,500 – then light up for a milli-second and radiate heat every which way including downwards towards the Earth’s surface – suppose for a moment that that is correct, though I confess I find it fanciful in the extreme – the same question remains – ‘What is their temperature?’ For if the temperature of these molecules, which are so tiny that you cannot see them under a microscope, were even to be the same as the temperature as ground level, then nothing whatsoever would happen, no heating could occur.

Great scientists at the Met and the CRU I pray you, correct me if I am wrong.

If however I am right, then the whole of the Met website on Climate Change would have to be re-cast or discarded completely and a new and more accurate one supplied for the benefit of all our children and grandchildren, offspring, relatives and all – yes, all humanity. Perhaps even our Political masters could begin to comprehend this simple concept. I owe to Alan Siddons of the United States the profoundly simple thought ‘Why can the Sun heat the Earth?  Answer: Because the Earth is colder.’

Anthony Bright-Paul
October 2011


Postscript 2: Mixing Apples and Pears

The confusion surely arises from mixing apples and pears. As per the example with two jugs, the first jug increases in volume, but not in temperature.

 In the same way I have Alarmist friends who are fond of declaring how many gigatonnes of CO2 have been added to the atmosphere. Sure, they may be right – I don’t know for sure. But they are talking about volume.

So the volume of Carbon Dioxide in the lower atmosphere has increased. Ok. I will even Ok some downward radiation. But, it is entirely irrelevant unless they can prove that what comes down is hotter than what went up. QED.


Worth a Look

by Brian Sussman

About the Author

Sussman was the San Fran Bay Area’s most celebrated television science reporter and meteorologist for 20 years and is the new morning man on KSFO, 560 AM, the highest-rated talk show in the fourth largest radio market in the country. He founded Brian’s Kids, an adoption advocacy organization that placed 400 kids in permanent homes.

About the Book

Climategate is a godsend for anyone who has ever expressed skepticism about the environmentalist that claim that the Earth is in peril because of mankind’s appetite for carbon-based fuels.

A distinguished, award-winning television weatherman in San Francisco, Brian Sussman deftly melds easy-to-understand scientific facts with provocative commentary. Sick of twisted “facts” mass-marketed to manipulate basic living decisions and common-sense energy consumption, Sussman indicts a cabal of elitist politicians, bureaucrats and activists who front the environmental movement to push intrusive, Marxist-derived policies in a quest to become filthy rich.

By tracing the origins of the current climate scare, Sussman guides the reader from the diabolical minds of Marx and Engels in the 1800s, to the global governance machinations of the United Nations today. Climategate is a call to action, warning Americans that their future is being undermined by a phony pseudo-science aimed at altering every aspect of life in the United States and the world.


Environmentalism is a spawn of communism. The book will help you make the connection between the millions who died under the regimes that embraced it and the tsunami of lies that maintains environmentalism to this day.

It is no accident that Earth Day, April 22, is also the birth date of Vladimir Lenin, the Marxist who led the Russian revolution that led to the establishment of communism in 1917. The Soviet Union, a nation Ronald Reagan called “the evil empire”, finally collapsed in 1991 from its inherent oppression and inability to produce real jobs, real goods, and a life free of an all-powerful state.

“Earth Day,” writes Brian, “has never been a celebration of God’s wonderful creation; instead it’s always been an assault on man.” That is why the central message of environmentalism is that man is a “cancer” on the earth and responsible for climate change. That is why its leading advocates want to reduce the earth’s population by any means possible.

Neither mankind, nor the bogyman of carbon dioxide has anything to do with climate change. Right now the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is moving to regulate CO2 as “a pollutant” and it has the authority under the Clean Air Act as the result of one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in modern times.

Regulating CO2 would make about the same sense as regulating oxygen on the grounds that it produces rust or that it is a component of fire. Regulating Co2 is crazy!

“Climategate” is the best book to date about this massive fraud, those who have lined their pockets advancing it, and the political agenda behind it; masterminded out of the bowels of the United Nations.



I admit that my eyes got a bit misty when I read those first few words! That’s exactly the kind of insight I wish to impart to  readers. I never heard of Anthony Bright-Paul before Hans mentioned him a month ago. But Hans mentioned him again just recently — and here he is again. His Two Jugs example is very apt: adding one ‘warm’ to another warm just gives you one warm. I pointed out the same thing a few days ago on Hockey Schtick.
Lindzen argues that 240 watts from the surface matched by 240 from the sky will make the surface radiate 480 watts per each square meter…
If you aim your attention on temperature, however, the impossibility of such a thing becomes apparent. For Lindzen’s scenario has a 255 Kelvin sky facing a 255 Kelvin surface — yet it is known that two bodies at the same temperature aren’t able to transfer heat to each other. Nor, of course, can one of those bodies raise the other’s temperature. 303 Kelvin resulting on the surface simply cannot happen, then.

Some people ‘get’ that and others don’t. I’m pleased to know that Bright-Paul does.

Alan Siddons

– – – – – – –


Please add my name to those of my Slayer colleagues endorsing your eloquent and unique style of writing. It is a delight to see you and so many others join us in helping to spread the word that specialists from the ‘hard’ disciplines (physics, analytical chemistry, engineering, etc.) are increasingly denouncing the so-called greenhouse gas effect as unphysical. 

The sooner those in the infant field of climatology wake up to what more qualified experts from the tougher sciences are saying, the sooner the world will realize there is no scientific basis whatsoever for attributing ANY blame for climate change on human emissions of CO2.  

Many thanks,

John O’Sullivan

– – – – – – –

Just came across this alarming article in Guardian … 
[a  copy available here>> ]

The attempt to actively manipulate Earth’s atmosphere in the name of an imaginary climate threat based on a theory with absolutely no backing by empirical evidence and only supported by computer models is utterly irresponsible at best and criminal at worst. It is a lunacy gone wild that we all of sane consciousness must stand up against. Adding to such attempts the huge profit incentive of certain groups makes the climate geo-engineering no different from bio-terrorism.

This is not about a confused or corrupt science anymore,  it’s about the protection of the most precious life-giving environment on this Planet, our atmosphere, and the well-being and survival of humankind. We must act by raising our voices to stop this insanity! 

 Ned Nikolov

PhD –  Physical Scientist

– – – – – – –

Ned at al

this is the reason that the elite controlled main stream media and all academic funding has been directed at Warmists and Lukes….the Warmists were to deliver the carbon tax-and-control system that would allow complete monopolization of industry and finance and eliminate interference from sovernign governments or ‘reluctant’ populations….the fall back is to patent ‘geo-engineered’ systems and collect enormous fees to reak havoc on the environment to either reduce populations or to the force implementation of their now demanded ‘corrective’ actions….this is the Munchausen doctor infecting you and the selling you the cure…. this is the reason that they MUST force all climate discussions to focus ONLY on levels of atmospheric gases and particles…. to admit that astronomical movement, the Sun’s variable behavior and Earth’s variable fission rate are the REAL causes of ALL climate change would end the AGW and the Geo-engineering Frauds…. none of the real governing forces are effected by Earth gases or particles….if you have NO predictive ability impact of these larger variables then WHAT RIGHT do you have to make ‘corrections’ ? we have been SO lied to….stop CARBON TAX-AND-CONTROL….and….STOP GEO-ENGINEERING….[we are too stupid to do any engineering of benefit]

Joe 0

– – – – – – –

Dear John,

A rather confusing discussion with Vincent, under the title  ‘ reply to Arthur’ . And I am not involved!  But no objection in this respect from me.
Meanwhile I visited the below mentioned site of the slayers.
I am still worried about the fact that you think that the Greenhouse model IPCC is violating the laws of thermodynamics.
But for another reason my sympathy with the efforts of the slayers grows.
Our Dutch Royal Academy (KNAW) produced a brochure on the climate debate, addressed to parliament. It is terribly offending for the climate sceptics in our country. Who participated  a year ago in a good meeting organized by KNAW. All the views of the sceptics are neglected. The brochure states (in short) IPCC is still an excellent scientific organisation. None of its statements have been significantly refuted. CO2 is a dangerous greenhouse gas, acidifying the oceans. I noticed, none of the authors have shown in the past to have any understanding of atmospheric processes. In a (too) emotional letter to the president of KNAW I wrote: you are crazy.  But five of my colleagues sceptics, kept cool, and presented on blogs their critique, which is in essence: you made at least 20 serious mistakes. I have proposed to them to bundle their critiques and also address it to parliament.
I am very furious. It is a shame in our (Dutch scientific)  family. If Hans Schreuder will take the trouble to translate the main statements in the brochure, I would welcome that.
Kind regards,

– – – – – –

Dear Arthur and all others,
Herewith a translation of the summary points in the KNAW document (which I have posted online for all to see here (it is in Dutch only):
From page 34:
7. Summary statements

  • a. Humanity is changing the composition of the atmosphere quickly and radically.
        The increased concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases can not be trivialised.
  • b. Approximately half of the human produced carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere.
        The rest is absorbed by the oceans and land vegetation/ground.
  • c. The absorption of carbon dioxide in the oceans leads to acidification of their waters.
        Deforestation and urbanisation leads to reduced uptake of carbon dioxide by the ground.
  • d. The last fifty years have seen an increase of the world’s average temperature.
        The period 2001-2010 was the warmest decade since systematic measurements started around 1850.
  • e. The current climate models declare climate changes in the 20th century to be extensive.
        According to these models the rise in the average temperature of the earth can not be adequately explained without taking into account the extra greenhouse gases produces by humans.
  • f. If we follow the scenario of the ever increasing use of fossil fuels, the model-projections indicate that the average temperature on earth in the year 2100 could be between 1.1 and 6.4 degrees higher than in 1990.
  • g. Minimum changes can have wide consequences for the climate.
        That property is, certainly for a unique system such as the climate, an urgent reason to abruptly limit (on a timescale of decades) changes (for example an enormous rise in carbon dioxide) as far as possible.

Further to the report’s publication, an online comment has already been posted (in Dutch): from where I will gladly translate the salient points for any who are interested.
Kind regards,


Dear John
I was not a co-author of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and I have criticized it for its ignorance of thermodynamics, refusing to support the Stefan/Boltzmann Radiation Law, obsession with “back radiation” and for its naive agreement with the IPCC  radiation-based  climate model in most respects. I attach my Book Review on the subject.
Physics used to depend on the repeatability of experiments. Nowadays there are an increasing number of disciplines which claim to be “Science” where experiments cannot be repeated. This includes “Climate Science” but extends to most Biology, Geology, Anthropology and openly pseudoscience’s like economics. Instead of repeatable experiments there is increasing reliance on correlation. All you need nowadays is a “link” however tenuous.
Correlation does not prove cause and effect and if you want anything better you have got to have “validation”, a procedure which involves rigorous testing, including the ability to forecast to a satisfactory level of accuracy, all future circumstances for which the theory or model  has application.
The IPCC and most climate scientists, even many “sceptics” of the Greenhouse Theory, do not understand this. So we are condemned to a world where  basic scientific standards have been abandoned by almost everybody.
Almost anybody can be an “expert reviewer’ of the IPCC Reports, although they do ask about your qualifications and interests  and, for all I know, they may sometimes reject people.
I have spent many hours, over 20 years, writing these comments.  I never got any credit for doing it and  initially the only way I could find out whether they took any notice was by comparing the final edition with the drafts. Only recently has it been possible for people to find out what I said and what they replied, because of the
Official Information Act. They used to send me a bound copy of the Reports, but now they send only a small part. I supposed it has got out of hand.
I have done this because, in my long career in research, I have been appalled by the collapse of scientific standards, with its ultimate triumph in the ‘Greenhouse Effect”. I have an irresistible urge to oppose it and everything it stands for.
If you want to tackle this “Sky Dragon”, as you have called it, there is no point just trying to put out the flames, trim its whiskers, demolish its lair or try, and persuade it to stop. What you have to do is to aim at its heart. Its heart is the IPCC.
Vincent Gray


The reason why the fraud never ends is because all we get is religion instead of science.  Even the critics claim that there is nothing wrong with the Stephan-Boltzmann constant.  What is the evidence?  I give detailed evidence and logic why it is wrong on my web site.  How could it be right when created a century ago before most of physics existed?  Faith in dead frauds is religion, not science.  But it’s worse.  It’s carrying the fraud a step farther by applying it to the atmosphere.  The Stephan-Boltzmann constant has no meaning without a surface.  The atmosphere radiates immensely more than a surface, because radiation can escape from a transparent gas immensely easier than it can escape from an opaque surface.  Any idiot would know that.  It shows what a bunch of idiots are promoting fraud in science.  The fraud goes with the stupidity.  Brainless persons need fraud, because they are not competetive with ratioinality.
The reason why it’s happening is because climatology cannot be reduced to simple math without the Stephan-Boltamann constant.  Without simple math, science becomes logic and rationality, which exposes fraud.  Math is a cover for incompetence and corruption in physics.  So the absurdity of finding a surface in the atmosphere is overlooked in applying the SBC to climatology.
My web page on the Stephan-Boltzmann constant:

Gary Novak
Science is Broken


  1. nb says

    I am not a scientist nor an expert in weather but I do have another view which I would like to share. Climate change is a natural phenomenon, we cannot stop it but we do contribute to it. Our present contribution intensifies the changes because what we contribute is mostly waste material, which is more difficult for mother earth to process/ digest.
    Geo-engineering cannot help in any way. The way to help is to do all what is necessary for climate change to occur in the smoothest way possible.
    Some of things are, stop cutting down the rain forest, stop the excessive mining of our earth and the deep sea drilling of oil. If these three things should be stop tomorrow, our climate change will still occur but maybe, just maybe not as painful.

    The Earth is pregnant and she is about to give birth, this is the real scenario, if you do not know that women go through pain to give birth, then you need to start researching. Another thing is not all women pain are the same, a healthy body has a different experience from that which is ill. Earth is going to give birth and the changes which are occurring are the preparation for this important event but she is ill and weak and this is due to us. Having this look on the whole matter, will then give you the understanding that there is no right or wrong in the climate change pro and con, yet we can have a better understanding as what must be done.

    Does earth not look like an egg, does our 70% water does not look like birth water?
    The vain has set in and a Boy is about to be born. A golden Boy

  2. Ab Asaff says

    Well you know, I will never get lung cancer from the polluted air I breathe everyday because I don’t smoke cigarettes.

    While I believe that there is some merit that polluting human activity contributes to global warming, (Re. Hafsteinn’s simple point above) one aspect left out of the equation is that the whole Solar System has been heating up for some time and no one can say for certain why that is happening. Factor that in with man’s senseless dirty behaviour and I think you have a recipe for global disaster.

  3. hafsteinn halldorsson says

    I am not a scientist,a mathematician or a weatherman.
    I´ve read the article above and what the author says about his tea not getting hotter by adding the same temp.of tea into his cup won’t make it hotter is of course correct.Also that the sun has to be hotter than the earth to warm it up seems logical.
    But suppose you have a locked,sealed room with 20 degrees temp.and you have one person put inside it will heat up a little.If you put 100 people inside the room it will heat up even more.Why?Because the room is sealed and the heat stays in the room.The same with the Earth.Putting more Carbon Dioxide into Earth’s atmosphere does exactly the same thing.Saying that pollution doesn’t affect the Earth’s climate,seems to me that someone forgot to do his math(the author).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *