New Video : Goldilocks And The Three Planets : A Global Warming Fairy Tale

In this video, I address the fundamental failure of climate science.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to New Video : Goldilocks And The Three Planets : A Global Warming Fairy Tale

  1. feathers says:

    Thanks Tony, very educational.

    I’m feeling down today. I’m grateful that Trump is in the White House but its clear to me that the opposition (both Democrats & RINOS) strategy of delaying, stalling, and opposing high level appointments is working.

    We are a full year in and how many Trump appointees are in leadership positions at NOAA, NASA, and other “climate science” posts? How many Obama appointees still have jobs?

  2. arn says:

    I’m really shocked that they forgot to tamp… adjust the temperatures and make them peak to match the the peak increase in co2.
    (still too much hoenesty in climate science left)

    there’s also another thing one consider regarding venus.(in case i’m right)

    A planet with a very slow rotation should generally be warmer than one with a fast rotation,as the potential upside is much bigger than the downside in temperature.
    And the closer the planet is to the sun the bigger the upside.
    We are in General just 270-300degrees celsius away from maximum cold(i don’t know the specific english term)
    but on the upside the temperature can theoretically increase to a million++
    and suns surface is about 5000degrees celsius(surface) and 15 million(core).
    So the sun can heat up venus much more in terms of degrees than space can
    cool down the venus on the dark side in term of degrees.
    Besides the heavy atmosphere((the more matter in an atmosphere the harder for light to escape,but for sure 0.01% co2 is pretty irrellevant )) the slow rotation should also be considered as a factor .
    of venus’ hot temperatures.

  3. Freddy Boom-Boom says:

    Meanwhile at heat, err, – “Record Highs Expected to Close Out November”
    ODDLY, no mention of the several record cold temps that took up most of the month (records that were not merely beaten in many places, but actually shattered). Ah well. More cold comes in with Dec too (record cold? I guess we’ll just never know!)
    So strange that they never have the comments turned on anymore. Hmm. So curious.

    • RAH says:

      Yep! Overall this November will turn out to be colder than average for N. America. If the weather models are correct the heat in the west is moving this way and will warm us up in the east some for awhile and then come the end of first week of December old man winter is going to drop the hammer on us in the Midwest and NE.

  4. Barry Cullen says:

    Excellent, as usual !
    A question for those on the fence; what do you think the real reason is for the alteration of all the evidence?

    • CheshireRed says:

      Because without those alterations the available evidence actually falsifies the CO2 theory so they adjust data to maintain the subterfuge, and what’s more they know they do.

  5. CheshireRed says:

    Another extremely strong video Tony, thanks. Brutal in it’s simplicity, I notice how your picture of the Grand Canyon shows frost at the top (ie high altitude and low pressure) but no frost at the bottom in the distance, ie low altitude and high pressure.) Observations in action using the Mk 1 eyeball, perfect!

    Pointing out how the *factual* temperature and atmospheric pressure observations between Earth, Venus and Mars shatter the GH theory despite hugely variable CO2 concentrations really is a killer blow. Simple, clean, observable, verifiable. In comparison there’s more contortions required to keep the GH theory relevant than a box of snakes. Simply put, this observation-based theory demolishes the entire theory of CO2 and greenhouse gas driven global warming.

    As Tony knows know this post is an extension of a recent paper by Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller which posits atmospheric pressure and distance from the sun are the main temperature drivers, not just here on Earth but on every planet with an atmosphere. That in turn follows on from Harry D Huffman’s Earth / Venus effect study from 2010.(links below for those who wish to read)

    That Venus and Mars have near-identical CO2 concentrations but a huge divergence in pressures and thus temperatures and that such figures from different planets can be measured and verified to demonstrate a fit with this theory is nothing less than jaw-dropping. If the theory is wrong then for Venus, Earth and Mars to have correlated temps/pressure figures – despite huge variations in distances from the sun – would have to be one hell of a coincidence. I do not believe that the odds of this discovery being just coincidental are plausible.

    The undeniable beauty of this theory is it *really is* observation-based (rather than requiring proxy or adjusted data from centuries and decades past to be included in the mix) and that the claims can be measured and verified today by anyone capable enough to handle the numbers.

    Scientifically I’m not fit to make anyone a cup of tea but as an interested member of the public I find these claims compelling in their simplicity and adherence to the scientific method. They’re replicable, repeatable, observable and most importantly, falsifiable. Tellingly, to my knowledge nobody has falsified these claims.



    • mkelly says:

      Tony wrote a post yrs ago on WUWT expressing PV= nRT on Venus temperature. He proceeded Nikolov by many years. I was kicked off Little Green Footballs years ago for expressing this idea. Told Johnson he did understand lapse rate.

      Tony I think this is the best yet.

      • CheshireRed says:

        I didn’t know that. interesting!

        WUWT had an article last week on this subject – with a note at the beginning flagging up that it was ‘controversial’. Guess what….loads of BTL comments from WUWT regulars entirely agreeing with it and / or flatly rejecting CO2 driven GH theory. Was an amusing read!

  6. GW Smith says:

    Excellent presentation, Tony! Not one wasted word! You go right for the juggler in the clearest and simplest words possible. Absolutely brilliant! Then you top it off with a note of levity which makes the thundering revelation enjoyable. Hard to do, but you pull it off better than anyone I known today. I’d put you put there with Nietzsche and Hemingway for brevity and punch. Keep it up!

  7. tonyheller says:

    Thank you! Much appreciated.

  8. frederik wisse says:

    Hitting the nail at the right spot ! Except these brainwashed clowns that call themselves climate-scientists were inoculated a long time ago against the disease called truth in their socialist-marxist mindset . For this reason i am already preaching for years that nobody should decorate himself with the title climate-scientist , unless he has an academic degree in thermo-dynamics . This will prevent most statistical falseness and computer-models madness , as it will offer at least the chance that people will understand what they are talking about . In reality the difference between stupidity and falseness is impossible to define . Having said this , the next problem is created . When someone is outstanding in thermo-dynamics , ie the oil-industry will be offering a top-job , practically all talent will be drained away from the climate-industry and climate-science will remain stuck with low-quality grant-hungry morons.
    You are a rare exception and hopefully a younger generation will be more inspired by true knowledge , truth and morale .

  9. Squidly says:

    Great video again Tony!

    Only one criticism that I might have with it. You mention Venus “oceans boiling away”. The problem with this is that Venus has never had oceans. Venus has never been cool enough to have oceans to begin with, so oceans could not have “boiled away” as has been claimed by Carl Sagan and others.

    Just thought I would point that out.

    Keep’em coming! … Your videos are awesome !!!

    • tonyheller says:

      Water coming out of Venusian volcanoes boils away. It is impossible and undesirable to cover every possible nuance in an eight minute video. Plus, I don’t want to start down an off-topic rat hole.

      Venus may have had a shallow liquid-water ocean and habitable surface temperatures for up to 2 billion years of its early history, according to computer modeling of the planet’s ancient climate by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

      • Rosco says:

        The NASA article is hilarious !

        “With no water left on the surface, carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere, leading to a so-called runaway greenhouse effect that created present conditions.”

        Just how “carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere” is not explained but I’ll take a run at it.

        Venus has prolific continuous volcanism which spews out carbon dioxide and heat.

        It is interesting that high in the atmosphere of Venus the Magellan Spacecraft recorded a temperature of about 66°C or ~339 K at atmospheric pressure of ~1000 mb – Earth’s surface pressure.

        If you compare Earth’s average surface temperature of ~15°C or ~288 K at ~1000 mb to Venus’ measured values you arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the ratio 288/339 is exactly what the inverse square law predicts if you use Kelvin and the Planet’s orbital values

        Earth’s orbital radius is ~149.6 x 10^6 km, Venus is ~108.2 x 10^6 km. Therefore Earth receives (108.2/149.6)^2 = ~0.52 times the radiation Venus does and the radiating temperature should be the 4th root of 0.52 times = ~0.85 x 339 K = ~288 K.

        No greenhouse effect need apply for explaining the temperature.

  10. Misanthropic Marc says:


    1) I think this is a step in the right direction; helping non-scientists to understand that climate is multidimensional (ergo doing a single var. regression on CO2 is useless).
    2) Agreed. Stay focused, don’t go down rabbit holes.


  11. CheshireRed says:

    A very interesting exchange on twitter tonight between Tony and Ned Nikolov, that Earth’s atmospheric pressure has probably varied down the years somewhat, leading to different temps and thus contributed to warming / cooling cycles. Never even heard that idea pushed before. Expect a Skeptical Science ‘rebuttal’ on their site by Monday tea time.

    • tonyheller says:

      I’ve heard a theory that pterodactyls could not fly in the current thin atmosphere.

      • RAH says:

        They may have a point. Archaeopteryx depictions make it look like it needed all the help it could get.

      • Douglas Hoyt says:

        Also brontosaurus could not be 50 feet tall in a 1000 mb atmosphere. Heart muscles are not strong enough to pump blood that high in the present era (that is why giraffe’s are limited to about 20 feet). Higher atmospheric pressure allows animals to be taller – ditto for plants.

  12. Extreme Hiatus says:

    This is outstanding. In terms of the message it may be your most effective video yet. And by putting this very simple story in a fairy tale context even those prone to believing the usual (CAGW) fairy tales cannot help but get it. If they saw it…

  13. oldbrew says:

    All that missing heat must be ‘hiding’ in the oceans, or so we’re told – otherwise CO2 theory is dead in the water, or should be.

    Airlines use the international standard atmosphere (ISA) model, as per the Grand Canyon example in the video:
    ‘As atmospheric pressure decreases with height, the temperature will decrease at a standard lapse rate…Remember that ISA models are theoretical. Due to inversions, as well as additions or decrease of moisture, the atmosphere will have different lapse rates.’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.