New Video : Demonizing Our Cleanest Energy

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to New Video : Demonizing Our Cleanest Energy

  1. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Thanks Tony, I learnt something today. Keep up your good and informative work.
    Cheers from Perth, Aus.

  2. Iris says:

    Dear Tony,

    I watched your video with the Australian senator and Tim Ball – shocking.

    I find this issue is very difficult to get across, people are totally blocked.

    I had a discussion with a woman who is atmosphere studies graduate. She sent me a NASA graph on CO2, saying that there is no scientific controversy over this. I would like to send you this graph and ask you about this.

    But there are no contact details on your website.

  3. D Boss says:


    I trust the veracity of your work on the radiative values…

    However, the whole climate fiasco is built upon false postulates, and is in blatant violation of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.

    A cold body (atmosphere) cannot deliver heat to a warmer body (earth) – period!

    Second, the method commonly used for calculation is contrary to reality.

    the bottom line is the convoluted methods used by most in this fiasco, supposes the “downwelling” radiative energy is higher than that received by the sunlight!

    Which is of course impossible! (unless you believe in a perpetual motion machine)

    So given their numbers, which started falsely, I do not doubt your charts – but the initial numbers cannot be correct as outlined in the above link. (your relative values are meaningful – i.e. water vapor dominates)

    They suppose the sunlight is divided on a flat plane, or earth’s radius when in fact it falls on a hemisphere.

    Thus they drastically downgrade the actual solar intensity by this averaging/flat earth trick.

    The idea of downwelling radiative energy from greenhouse gases is a myth and unphysical. at every successively higher altitude, the lapse rate makes lower and lower temperatures in the troposphere. Thus colder regions cannot heat warmer, lower altitude regions via the 2nd Law.

    Radiation from the ground can heat some greenhouse gas molecules, but they can only release lower energy – or can vibrate more and heat surrounding gas molecules – all of which only effectively radiate to space.

    The “blanket” of air only slows the cooling, it cannot add warming.

    And according to the common myth, the downwelling radiation from GHG is double the value of the incoming sunlight! (which is hogwash)

    To summarize the so called “scientist” consensus on global warming/climate cultism – has violated basic tenets of physics in their pronouncements. And are the blind leading the (more) blind public!

    • Petit_Barde says:

      Just to complete your post :

      Actually, the downwelling IR radiative flux is not an energy transfer between the atmosphere and the surface but merely a flux :
      – The radiative energy transfer between two bodies B1 and B2 is the net balance between the radiative flux emitted by B1 towards B2 and the radiative flux emitted by B2 towards B1.

      According to the NASA 2009 mean Earth energy budget data :
      – the incoming mean solar flux is 340W/m² = 100%,
      – the upward IR flux from the surface is 117%,
      – the atmospheric window (the flux directly emitted from the surface into space) is 12%,
      – the downward radiative flux from the atmosphere towards the surface is 105%
      – the IR radiative flux from the atmosphere into space is 50%

      By definition, the IR radiative energy transfer between the surface and the atmosphere is the net balance between :
      – the upward IR radiative flux emitted by the surface towards the atmosphere, which is 117% (the total upwelling IR flux) – 12% (the atmospheric window) = 105%,
      – minus the downward IR radiative flux emitted by the atmosphere towards the surface. which is 100%.

      Thus, this IR radiative energy transfer is upward and equals 105% – 100% = 5% which is 17 W/m².
      This value has to be compared with the IR radiative flux emitted from the atmosphere into space (which is actually an energy transfer if we neglect the incoming IR flux from the space (other than from the Sun)), which is 50%, or 170 W/m².

      The fact is that most of those 170 W/m² are emitted by the active gasses in the medium to far IR spectrum (in the Earth’s atmosphere there is practically nothing else than molecules that have a magnetic dipole, be it permanent (H2O, O3, …) or not (CO2, …) that can radiate in this wavelength spectrum by rotational / vibrational state transitions). Electronic state transitions take place only at wavelengths shorter than 1,5 µm and can therefore be neglected with respect to the thermal radiation of the atmosphere.

      The conclusion is that the active gasses in the medium to far IR spectrum (H2O, CO2, O3, …) combined with the atmospheric circulation (convection, …) act as a very gentle and efficient AC.

      Despite their absorption of 17 W/m², their main effect is to cool the atmosphere by allowing it to lose an average of 170 – 17 = 153 W/m².

  4. GeologyJim says:

    Thanks, Tony, for another very clear, concise, and well presented discussion of the methane topic.

    Even if the alarmist’s claims (28x effect) were true, methane is 200x more rare in the atmosphere than CO2 – and frankly neither of them amounts to anything in the radiation balance in the atmosphere, as you show

    I will share this video with a number of my concerned/alarmist but curious liberal friends

  5. Disillusioned says:

    Thank you Tony. The same Arctic catastrophist who [wrongly] predicted the 2013 demise of Arctic ice, was pushing the “Arctic Methane Emergency” a year later.
    The backdrop is all any informed, critical thinking adult needs to see:

    With no shame at all for how totally wrong they have been in the past, he and Wadhams are still out there pushing their fearmongering.

    The unsuspecting public think they are experts. They are experts at what it is like to be completely wrong – time after time after time after time.

  6. Bill Nelgner says:

    Hi Tony, I really admire what you’re doing and I really like the way you present comparisons of historical data to the propaganda we currently see every day. Your method of presenting should make it easy for the average person to understand that the propaganda they encounter today is untrue. As a counterpoint to the theme of temperature graphs and data being manipulated and changing throughout the years, I would love to see a video showing the development of the spectral absorptivity graph you show in this video. I’m betting this data has not changed since it was developed back in the 40s? or 50s? It’s surprising to me that someone hasn’t tried to move the main CO2 absorption peak into the center of the atmospheric window and reduce its value from 100% down to say 5% or 10% to show that it CAN greatly affect the cooling ability of the earth – but that would probably be too easy to disprove and that person or agency would immediately be discredited. Thanks again for all you’re doing.

  7. James Snook says:

    Tony points out that the small Methane absorption range overlaps with that of water vapour. Thus, the effect of Methane to down welling radiation is not 100% additive, as the theoretical calculations of its effect assume, but some figure less than that, dependant on average global water vapour conditions.

    It’s probably an impossible question to answer, but does anyone have an idea what that figure might be? It’s a pretty important one, because it might enable me to justify me eating my steak!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.