New Video : Basic Science For Climate Scientists

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to New Video : Basic Science For Climate Scientists

  1. Stuart Nachman says:

    As a layperson I just witnessed the best explanation yet of the greenhouse effect and CO2’s role in it. Great work Tony. Is there any other area of the hard sciences where data tampering is this rampant? It seems that the scientific method has been turned upside down.

    • Superchunk says:

      Diet and and Health research is a good contender, if you consider it a “hard”science. Doctoring Data, a book by by Dr. Kendrick is a good place to get started if you are not familiar with the topic, and his blog has lots of insights too. The situation is actually far worse than climate “research” since well-meaning people (I used to be one of them)are being physically harmed daily by bad advice from the health “authorities”. Even worse, when really good science comes along such as Dr. Bredesen’s reversal of dementia or Hallberg et al’s diabetes research or the Alt et al AIP study related to digestive issues, it is ignored or suppressed by the mainstream “authorities”.

  2. Norilsk says:

    This is an interesting video on the attemps and successes of the Russians to place a lander on Venus. They found that at 52 km above the surface it was 33 C.

  3. G W Smith says:

    Grand Slam, Tony! Dagger to the heart! The myth is dead! Your best!

  4. JPinBalt says:

    Check out this Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) graph.
    According to this, more OLW is escaping earth over last 70 years, polar opposite of the increased CO2 absorbing more so less is escaping theory.

    Of course OLR is impacted by incoming solar radiation which varies over time with each solar cycle (plus zonally, and seasonally by eccentricity and how close to perihelon), thus more in mostly from visible light spectrum, then more reflected out in terms of LW, and also by cloud cover, humidity, etc.

    I am not an atmospheric scientist, but I did many multivarate regressions on the OLR time series data trying to control for things like incoming Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) W/m2, CO2 levels, humidity, etc., a year or two ago. The most significant explanatory variable by a long shot was specific humidity. CO2 parameter was statistically insignificant on OLR plus had wrong sign according to AGW.

    Data on Top of Atmosphere Outgoing Longwave Radiation (W/m^2) can be downloaded (seasonal average or monthly) here (use monolevel).

    • JPinBalt says:

      No comments on prior comment on Outgoing Long Wave Radiation (OLR) increasing? Would appreciate any comments or evaluation.

      Seems to me that after adjusting for incomming solar irradiance and humidity for long time span, higher recorded top of atmosphere OLR is somewhat a definitive smoking gun that AGW does not exist. If added atmospheric CO2 was traping all that OLR, according to greenhouse theory, top of atmosphere OLR should be falling which it is not.

      Any replies, comments or constructive criticism on this?

  5. Norilsk says:

    Tony, you are a total genius!

  6. Charles Higley says:

    All of the greenhouse gas (GHG) discussion is good. But, it is time to stop calling these GHGs. They have no effect on climate; they are radiative gases. As these “GHGs” absorb IR radiation at temperatures that are lower than the temperature 0f Earth’s surface, any downwelling IR must be reflected by the already filled energy levels. This is true for all GHGs, including water vapor. The oceans appear to be immune as well as they absorb all light but are also warmer than the -80°C temperature sent downward by CO2. So, what does this all mean?

    Earth’s surface is heated by solar radiation and the constituent gases are stimulated at the same time. Thus, any gases absorbing and reradiating energy during sunlight serve to dissipate incoming energy, thus effectively causing some cooling of the resulting climate. Any upwelling IR radiation during solar input will be effectively ignored and lost to space.

    During night, GHGs use their lower energy bands to emanate IR that is lost to space. This is why the temperature drops so quickly at sundown as the atmosphere pours IR upward to space. The temperature in the desert drops very rapidly as the air has little water vapor and it is a clear loss of IR to space. We get the lowest night temperatures in Iowa on clear star-lit nights.

    Water vapor overlaps most of CO2’s absorption spectrum and thus CO2 is meaningless in this process. This is the secret that the alarmists do not want the public to know. CO2 is basically harmless, is swamped out by other factors, and indeed plant food.

    • Dan Paulson says:

      Excellent comment Charles. You have hit on the one nit that I would pick with Tony, on this otherwise excellent video.

      Tony, you do a great job here, but for the use of phrases such as heat absorbing gas etc. Basis physics show that there is no gas on earth that can absorb heat nor energy. Gasses will absorb and re-emit energy, but the dwelling time is far too short to be considered as absorbing.

      For example CO2 is estimated to absorb and re-emit in about 80 femtoseconds. 80 X 1 millionth of 1 billionth of a second can never be considered as absorbing anything.

  7. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Excellent stuff Tony. I urge everyone to share it widely. To that end could you put “sharing buttons” on your site? I post lots of your stuff on FB and the like to spread the gospel.

  8. John says:

    Not forgetting the contribution due to the pressure of the atmosphere through an adiabatic process (one of the reasons Venus is so hot and why Earth can’t experience a “runaway greenhouse effect”)

  9. mcgatlin says:

    Thanks to you, Tony Heller

    I think I’ve finally understood what François Gervais, a French prize-winning physicist and university professor was trying to explain a couple years back about saturation! This problem was a thorn in my side – My layman’s highly schematic and approximative comprehension just couldn’t visualize this phenomenon.

    The low-energy wave of my neuronal activity just wasn’t strong enough to penetrate the thick vapor comprising my grey matter to reach the stratospheric levels of conscious understanding!
    But your fabulous explanation and illustrative graph has made me see the light!
    I can’t thank you enough for this and for all of the fabulously articulate and informative work you do!
    Your inimitable deadpan delivery is also exquisitely gratifying!
    So, just keep tellin’ it like it is, Sir, Heller-highwater!!
    We’re all indebted to you!

  10. Nick Hill says:

    A magnificently lucid explanation of how the process works and why the whole AGW argument is a scam.

  11. Phillip Goggans says:

    I have a question about the “despite polar darkness” comments at around 6 minutes. True, there would be little greenhouse effect at the poles, because of the paucity of sun light. But wouldn’t the atmospheric temperature there be affected also by atmospheric temperature elsewhere, as the absorbed energy diffuses? In that case, a greenhouse effect at other latitudes would cause temperature to increase at the poles. I’m sorry if this is naive. I’m not a scientist.

  12. Phillip Goggans says:

    The graph “Radiation Transmitted by the Atmosphere” graph is fascinating. I don’t understand, however, why Tony infers from it that increasing CO2 is innocuous. He notes that the frequency of light that CO2 absorbs is already being mostly absorbed anyway. He infers that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have little effect on how much light the atmosphere absorbs. That seems right, but here we need actual numbers. Suppose that doubling CO2 increases energy absorption by, say, only .01%. That’s very little indeed, but what does that actually mean in terms of increasing temperature? For all I know, a .01% increase in radiation absorption would be significant. I’d like to see another graph that has temperature on the y-axis and radiation absorption on the x-axis.

  13. Haymaker says:

    Brilliant. Can we get you an hour interview on CNN? Something tells me you’ll be featured a bit more in the next election.

  14. Bazmd says:

    I am blocked by you on twitter, reconsider this action or address why. You have censored my opinion from commenting on issues that other people have been discussing. You and I have exchanged thoughts over the past 10 years or so and I’m not sure where you have taken offense.


  15. John says:

    Apologies if this is inappropriate for this forum.
    The greenhouse effect as applied to horticultural greenhouses is that glass lets in certain IR wavelengths but prevents other re-emitted IR wavelengths being radiated out, thus increasing the temperature inside the structure, have I remembered this correctly?
    Does polythene have the same properties with regards to IR radiation?
    If a horticulturist increases the carbon dioxide inside his glass greenhouse to two, three or even four times normal concentration is there a larger increase in temperature compared with an identical greenhouse with ordinary air inside?

    • Dan Paulson says:

      John you are in error. The greenhouse lets IR in but prevents cooling via convection, which takes place where there is no glass blocking the escape of warmed air.

      The term “greenhouse effect” has no place in proper discussion of the climate of earth. It is wordsmithing in order to create a pre-supposed outcome of the thought process, and has nothing to do with actual physical science of what takes place in the atmosphere.

      To answer your question, the doubling or tripling or more, of CO2 in a greenhouse has zero effect on the temperature or the rate of heating within a greenhouse. In the real world CO2 is a coolant, though at the tiny amounts in mixed air, it has little measurable effect.

      • John says:

        Dan, I posed the first question to clarify my own thoughts. IIRC when I was at school this was how the greenhouse effect was explained.
        The subsequent questions were raised to confirm that what I was told at school was incorrect.
        Does the “greenhouse” effect happen in the atmosphere or is the temperature due to adiabatic processes and pressure? I’ve watched 1000frolly on YouTube and he argues that there is no greenhouse effect.

        • Dan Paulson says:

          John we also see Venus used as an example of a runaway greenhouse effect which is absolute rubbish.

          There is no doubt that the atmosphere insulates the planet against the cold void of space.

          You are on exactly the right track if you are considering adiabatic lapse rate and atmospheric pressure. There is no need for magical mole fractions of CO2 when simple planetary physics can account for all known atmospheric processes and changes. In recent decades all planets in our solar system have warmed slightly, yet the Earth is the only one with a changing CO2 fraction. The church of climatology does not allow the consideration of solar sources for warming on Earth, but certainly can find no other plausible reason for the warming of the other planets.

  16. AlJones1816 says:

    Tony, hasn’t the exact argument you make in this video be rebutted a very long time ago? It seems to be missing a fundamental piece of the structure of the atmosphere, which is that it isn’t a single uniform block, where the concentration of water vapor is the same everywhere. In the high upper atmosphere, where most transmission of radiant energy to space occurs, the air is very dry. It doesn’t really matter if IR is saturated near the ground because of water vapor, it matters whether adding CO2 to the emitting layer can substantively reduce emissivity.

  17. Aussie says:

    Outstanding presentation. I had known all about this issue, but you have done a good job summarising for everybody. This proves that CO2 is a complete non issue.

    I have forwarded the link to Sussan Ley , Australian Environment minister, and will be following up.

    For everybody, else the link below to an outstanding presentation by Willie Soon showing that its the Suns output which is correlated to temperature is essential viewing. He has also got some good stuff to say on the temperature records and does a good analysis here.

    The sun is the mechanism which drives heating/cooling, and is beyond our control.

  18. Jeff Jones says:

    Love all your videos but have been waiting for this one to be published. This is the definitive argument, nothing else needs to be said.

  19. No, No, No, Tony! The sunlight “coming down through the atmosphere” does NOT “warm the Earth’s surface” in the sense of raising the global mean surface temperature. Even NASA gets it right by calculating that the global mean flux of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is about 168W/m^2. (For Venus it is only about 20W/m^2 or less.) The Stefan-Boltzmann Law in physics lets us calculate that the 168W/m^2 CANNOT raise the Earth’s global mean surface temperature above 233K which is about -40C.

    Get your physics right Tony, for the sake of the world!

    The correct physics is in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” at and is summarized in my 15 minute video at

  20. Tony.

    It’s NOT about radiation being trapped.

    What you say is certainly “not something new” but it’s wrong. YOU SCORE OWN GOALS Tony by endorsing their “radiative forcing” conjecture. The global mean surface temperature of Earth is NOT primarily determined by radiation of any kind. How could the surface of Venus be determined by radiation?

    For goodness sake, Tony, get the right physics!

    Josef Loschmidt explained in 1876 that it is GRAVITY which sets up the temperature gradient in the troposphere.

    What I write is CORRECT PHYSICS Tony.

    Get on the GRAVITY train.

    STUDY my 2013 paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures:

    The whole paradigm is totally different to what you think.

    Why is the base of the 350 Km high nominal troposphere of Uranus hotter than Earth’s surface?

    Downward “back radiation” does NOT warm us!

    Wet regions with 4% water vapor are NOT 50 degrees hotter than dry regions with less than 1% concentration. They are COOLER. My correct physics explains why.

    Watch for eight minutes:

  21. Mark Frank says:

    **Please** – anyone who is accepting Tony’s video uncritically – look a bit deeper.

    * Ignore the stuff about what happened tens of millions of years ago. Temperature levels at that scale of time are determined by things that change over millions of years like the heat of the sun. Life had millions of years to adapt.

    * The argument that a rise in temperatures causes an increase in CO2 (so they do correlate after all – despite the claim of the first part of the video!) has been addressed hundreds, if not thousands, of times. Yes temperature rise causes an increase in CO2 but so does an increase in CO2 cause an increase in temperature – leading to positive feedback. This feedback eventually runs out for several reasons and a runaway Venus situation is not a serious risk (Hawking was not a climate scientist) but can cause a rather quick jump in average temperature. See

    * It is true that the current CO2 levels have already blocked all emissions at their peak wavelength but as more CO2 is added the width of wavelengths that are blocked gets wider – so more CO2 can still increase blocking of emissions. See for a detailed explanation.

    It would be satisfactory if a qualified climate scientist addressed Tony’s points here (which are hardly new) but I am sure they have more important things to do.

    • Gator says:

      … look a bit deeper.

      More psychological projection from the left.

      Mark, we have looked far deeper than you ever dreamed. There are no positive feedbacks in the climate system, they are only found in failed models that are used to fool the ignorant. You need to look a bit deeper.

      There is absolutely nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate or how we got here. You have been duped, because you refuse to dig deeper.

      Why do you deny natural climate change and basic science?

  22. rah says:

    “* Ignore the stuff about what happened tens of millions of years ago. Temperature levels at that scale of time are determined by things that change over millions of years like the heat of the sun. Life had millions of years to adapt. ”

    IOW ignore all science that provides evidence that refutes the current dooms day scenario. But hell, alarmists don’t just ignore the science that looks into the conditions of “tens of millions of years ago”. They ignore the LIA and MWP except when they aren’t trying to wipe it out of the record. They ignore the horrendous weather of the 1930’s or any other period when atmospheric CO2 levels were considerably lower than now. Heck they even ignore the fact there is no persist hot spot in the upper troposphere in the tropics as their claims demand and ignore the fact that SST’s in the tropics are pretty much static and that not a single predicted climate catastrophe that has been predicted has occurred or appeared to have occurred. In order to be an alarmist one must ignore the current reality, human history, and not just paleo sciences/evidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.