Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Colorado Wellington on “Democratic Socialism”
- David of Aussie on “Democratic Socialism”
- Jim Hunt on D-Day For Arctic Alarmists
- Jim Hunt on D-Day For Arctic Alarmists
- Jim Hunt on D-Day For Arctic Alarmists
Archives
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
New Video : NASA Debunks Global Warming Theory
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
NOAA and NASA Admit the Sun NOT CO2 is Causing the Arctic Sea Ice to Disappear
The above video from NOAA clearly identifies warmer arctic oceans as the cause of the thinning and shrinking of the Arctic Sea Ice. CO2 is NEVER mentioned. NASA’ Goddard’s Institute for Space Studies explains that the warming of the Arctic is due to 5% more solar radiation being absorbed since 2000. CO2 is transparent to … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/noaa-and-nasa-admit-the-sun-not-co2-is-causing-the-arctic-sea-ice-to-disappear/
The above video says nothing about NOAA or oceans.
NOAA is on the very first frame of the Video.
“NOAA Arctic Report Card 2017.”
1:38 into the video they attribute it to the warmer seas. Earlier in the video they actually claim the atmospheric temperature is lower than usual.
Sorry, you must have been talking about your video. I was only posting a different angle. NOAA and NASA provide many contradictory videos and documents. Plenty of them provide more logical reasons for the loss of ice and higher temperatures, and none of them have to do with CO2. I was simply trying to provide some support for your argument. Love your work.
But is the sun stronger or our protection against the sun’s UV radiation growing weaker ?
The big problem is that thanks to the deliberate dumbing down of the population, our protection against even stupid propaganda is growing weaker.
That’s one reason why these short and graphic posts and videos Tony does are so great. Even those with the attention span of a gnat can’t help but get them or at least question their blind beliefs a little – which is a good start.
Awesome Tony, thanks!
Isn’t this the gravito thermal effect? Something Feinman and others worked on for NASA back back when they were interested in science.
Indeed! … Just for the record, many of the people at PSI (Principia Scientific International) have been discussing this very thing for several years. Not a new concept and is easily demonstrated, just as Tony did here.
Excellent video Tony!!!
Thank you for finally pointing out that a “radiative greenhouse effect” is impossible in this universe! .. It is a violation of both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, among other physical laws.
One thing to note, that you could have also mentioned. Besides atmospheric pressure being an overwhelming factor, a very minor constituent is indeed the chemical composition. CO2 is an extremely high emissivity gas. That is, it emits what it absorbs. We know that in order to increase atmospheric temperature (with everything else being equal), one must decrease the emissivity of the atmosphere. CO2 acts to increase the emissivity of the atmosphere, and is precisely why CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world. CO2 makes for a very good thermal conductor, and a very poor thermal insulator. Besides the fact that a “gas”, any gas, cannot “trap” heat, especially in an open atmospheric system.
Anyway, thank you very much for this video. It was wonderful as usual! .. great work!
I didn’t say anything like what you just described.
Tony, what you describe in your vide in fact demonstrates precisely what I just said.
Good job Tony. Everything going on about man-caused, CO2 based global warming totally ignores the basic science that increasing CO2 CAN’T cause increasing greenhouse effect. That point needs to be hammered often and hard. Along with the fact that water vapor is orders of magnitude more effective as a greenhouse gas than any trace gas in the atmosphere, including CO2. Should we then propose eliminating water vapor from the atmosphere to save the universe?
Quick question. Pressure decreases non-linearly from planet surface as altitude increases. Yet the various lapse rates are linear with altitude change. I can sort of dismiss this for earth with only 1 atmosphere pressure at surface. But Venus has 93 atmospheres pressure through its troposphere. There needs to be a mathematical characterization of why lapse rate is linear if it’s directly tied to pressure, which is highly non-linear for Venus. Dry adiabatic lapse rate = g/specific heat I believe, which explains the linear lapse rate. https://hs.umt.edu/physics/documents/BOREALIS/Lapse%20Rate%20Terms%20and%20Formulas2012.pdf
On Venus the lapse rate will depend on temperature because there is a pronounced dependence of Cp on temperature for CO2.
All your videos are great but a few are outstanding, and this is one is right up at the top of the list IMO.
It seems to me that your starting to compile a library of these videos. Perhaps it is time to put them all in one place that is searchable by subject matter and categorized for reference sort of like PragerU? https://www.prageru.com/
Just put a link to it up at the top with the others perhaps? Don’t know if you could do it without additional cost though.
Thanks Tony.
Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/c/tonyheller
Cool video!
I suppose, there is a minor slip of the tongue at 7:50, where you say atmospheric composition on Venus and Earth is very similar.
Good catch … Tony should correct that before the crazies are all over him for misspeaking.
You can calculate the temperatures for all of the planets as listed by NASA using the Universal Gas Law PV = nRT.
I wrote this for PSI in 2013
https://www.dropbox.com/s/m69jbs2465t0hut/Analysis%20of%20Blackbody%20Temperatures%20versus%20Universal%20Gas%20Laws.docx?dl=0
And if the Stefan-Boltzmann equation truly defines Earth’s emissions to space than additional CO2 in the atmosphere will increase emissivity and hence radiation to space as all the satellite data shows. Even if all surface IR is already accounted for additional atmospheric CO2 will radiate more than O2 or N2 to space in the IR bands by virtue of its temperature due to collisions between molecules – heat transfer. However as you always say this effect must be negligible due to the tiny fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I always found it difficult to believe radiation from cooler objects causes an increase in the temperature of warmer objects but extra CO2 causing a slight positive anomaly in radiation to space and hence higher satellite measured temperatures is feasible.
Rosco says:
January 30, 2018 at 10:40 pm
You can calculate the temperatures for all of the planets as listed by NASA using the Universal Gas Law PV = nRT.
I’m not sure how you would do that in the case of Venus since that equation assumes that the atmospheres obey the Ideal Gas Law, whereas the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is far from an ideal gas, in fact it’s a super critical fluid.
NASA’s calculations for the planets are based on incoming photospheric solar irradiation, W/m^2, at the appropriate orbital distance (earth, 1,368) reduced by albedo (earth α=.3 +/-) and that net equilibrium entering and leaving W/m^2 (240 +/-) entered into S-B assuming 1.0 emissivity equaling T. PV = n R T isn’t involved in the calculation. See ACS climate tool kit for examples.
That’s where the 255 K w/o atmosphere comes from in the bogus 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere nonsense.
All IDEAL physical theories have limitations, e.g. Newtonian mechanics at light speed.
The limitations of S-B are such that you CANNOT use it to calculate 390 W/m^2 at 288 K upwelling from the surface, not with molecules and other heat processes participating. At ToA defined surface and space vacuum, ok.
Max Planck, maybe you heard of him, observed that heat radiation theory requires that the surface, and there MUST be a surface, must be greater than the wavelength of the absorbed and emitted radiations. That’s brick walls and pipe lagging and hot pressure vessels and maybe even light bulb filaments less than twenty feet away. That does NOT include individual molecules with zero defined surface floating randomly in the atmosphere.
People are measuring what they expect, wish fulfilment, not what actually is, i.e. confirmation bias^3.
Remember cold fusion?
I’m having a hard time understanding what PV=nRT has to do with the temperature of an atmosphere. It’s called the IDEAL gas law for a reason. It describes the relationship between these physical properties in an IDEAL and CLOSED system which is NOT a typical atmosphere.
P is pressure, V is volume, n is the number of molecules, T the temperature and R the IDEAL gas constant that ties them all together.
At a constant closed system volume:
If I want P to increase, I can 1) add more n molecules and/or 2) raise the temperature. An air compressor adds work/energy and can do both. But if the compressed air system now loses that heat to the surroundings, (See, it’s not closed.) the pressure remains, but the heat/temperature does not. Where is that connection that says P is simply/directly responsible for T?
If n is constant I can raise P by increasing T. Or let P stay and allow V to increase.
If P & n are constant and I decrease V, T must also go down, e.g. the cooling of an expanding gas.
If the atmospheric pressure is responsible for the atmospheric temperature why doesn’t temperature follow barometric pressure? Atmospheric temperature can vary from 0 F to 100 F over the year with little variation in barometric pressure.
Q = U A dT
K is the thermal conductivity per unit thickness. U is k times thickness. R = 1/U. (Wander the insulation aisle at Lowes for lots of examples.)
As noted earlier, if I double the thickness of the insulation, dT doubles. If dT begins as 40 F, 70 F inside and 30 F outside, when dT becomes 80 F by going from R6 to R12 and with no change in heat input it becomes 110 F inside and 30 F outside.
It is the composite U value of the atmosphere, including convection, advection, conduction, latent and radiation, winds, storms, clouds, albedo, etc. and assorted other thermal properties and behaviors of the atmosphere that control dT.
P V = nR T is not sufficient to explain the temperature of the atmosphere, Q = U A dT is.
Thanks Tony, that talk sums it all up very concisely.
The following link shows that the major warming factor of an atmosphere is the specific heat of the molecules that make up the atmosphere:
*** http://www.calqlata.com/Maths/Formulas_Atmosphere.html
Earth’s Atmospheric Gases (the theory)
This follows the gas laws as does the density of the gases making up the atmosphere.
So on that basis the Green House Theory is bunk.