“Powerful” Junk Science

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to “Powerful” Junk Science

  1. tom0mason says:

    Well done again Tony!
    Another excellent video which by looking at the history, demonstrates that current data is manipulated for effect, and so called scientific research is out and out lies and sophistry. Lies that are used by the sick but powerful morons who wish to control this and the next generation.
    Keep-up the good work, the current and next generation need to know the truth!

  2. CheshireRed says:

    Temps and AMO a superb match, all the more so given the timescale and cyclical nature of the evidence.

    Beyond ANY doubt AMO causes Arctic temperatures.

    The odds against those two datasets correlating so closely over multiple decades and temperature swings yet just being a ‘coincidence’ are so off the scale as to be impossible. Yet even when faced with utterly compelling, measured observations the ‘climate science’ industry still lies through its teeth and politicians look the other way. Staggering.

  3. James Snook says:

    The money graph to end all money graphs is the one showing the correlation of Icelandic temperature with the AMO.

    Brilliant stuff Tony, you deserve a Congressional Medal of Honour but I guess the Democrat majority wouldn’t have the intelligence to understand your work.

  4. D. Boss says:


    Fantastic job at showing the depravity of the so called science around the many examples of agenda driven propaganda. I really admire your dogged efforts at digging up and correlating all these historical and succinct demonstrations of the fallacy of the whole alarmist cult.

    I’m no climate guru, but have always been skeptical about anything I’ve been told. I like to dig and research the facts behind things – and concluded in my own efforts back when the ozone myth was perpetrated – that it was a farce.

    Now I’ve gotten fed up with all the caterwauling about CO2, and decided to do my own experimentation. It is something anyone can do with low cost and some diligence and a bit of easy math. (there’s reliable online calculators for the complex stuff)

    My results show CO2 cannot possibly be the bogey man it is made out to be. And indeed it is true that the foundational basis for all this climate crap is to have violated the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!

    That is to say, heat can only flow from hot to cold. Including radiative emissions! The Stefan-Boltzman (S-B) relation in it’s proper form conforms to this, however most of the gibberish even in peer reviewed junk – the notion of “downwelling” radiation is used as if gospel.

    Nothing is further from the truth, or reality. The colder atmosphere, CO2 or water vapor, cannot radiate down to warmer ground! The warmer ground radiates upward, and the greenhouse gases modulate this upward radiative cooling. That is they reduce the rate of ground cooling via radiation.

    Math is not reality! Math can be a symbolic means to represent reality. But if used incorrectly math can be un-physical, or not empirically consistent with reality.

    You can calculate the “radiative” emission of an atmospheric component in isolation and call it downwelling – but that is not necessarily reality. You must include the radiator temperature^4 minus the surrounding temperature^4 in the S-B relation.

    When you do so, the sign of the result shows the relative direction of the radiative emission. It is always from the ground toward space – period! (except in rare cases of a low altitude temperature inversion such as when ground is cold and a warm front proceeds – but these conditions are short lived and a small percentage of the time/area regards the globe)

    So the fundamental tenets of GHG theory is not based on accepted laws of physics. Downwelling radiation is a myth as it is used commonly in this whole fiasco. If you believe downwelling radiation can heat the ground – then you also believe in perpetual motion machines for both violate the 2nd Law!

    My point was not to sermonize – but to share results of my experiment. I will do it in 3 posts as this comment mechanism seems to only allow one image upload per post.

    But to summarize the results so far in 1 month of observations: obtaining the temperature, relative humidity and measuring ground and vertical sky temperature with an IR thermometer – and you can calculate the absolute humidity rendered in ppmv of water vapor (from air, R.H and barometric pressure).


    Plotting the sky temperature against water vapor ppmv I found absolute humidity varied from ~5,000 ppmv to ~25,000 ppmv, and sky temperature then varies from -80F to +25F respectively.

    I cross checked the veracity of my IR instrument by measuring cloud base temperature, when observed conditions had SCT or BKN conditions. (using aviation nomenclature as the best data is from airport/aviation info) Aviation data shows the altitude of those cloud bases.

    This cross check had cloud bases from ~1,000 to ~6,000 feet ASL. My location is 15 feet ASL. The cross check is to see if the normal lapse rate occurs. It does. So my instrument is indeed accurate to at least 6,000 feet altitude.

    Last I took the ground temperature as (T^4) and vertical clear sky temperature as (Tc^4) in the S-B relation. P=e0A(T^4 – Tc^4) and plotted radiative emission of the ground towards vertical clear sky vs water vapor ppmv.


    The result is at 5,000 ppmv water vapor the ground emission is 245 w/m², and at 25,000 ppmv water vapor the ground emission is 140 w/m².

    For comparison the IPCC in 2013 report says CO2 emission is 1.8 w/m². The median radiative emission of the ground with water vapor at say 12,000 ppmv is 100x higher than is the 400 ppmv CO2 emission value. (as a moderator of ground emission, water vapor is 100x more powerful than CO2)

    Case closed on this global warming from trace gases – be they CO2 or CFC’s. I expect the caterwaulers will either ignore or attack this…

    Water vapor is the main modulator of upwelling radiative cooling of the ground!

    3 charts, in this and following 2 posts

  5. D. Boss says:

    chart 2 in the series from previous post

  6. D. Boss says:

    chart 3 in series from previous post

  7. D. Mitchell says:

    At Davos Greta said “people must start listening to the science”. Did you mean the “Greenhouse Effect”, the “science” behind “Global Warming”, which says atmospheric CO2 warmed by the Earth surface radiates heat back to the Earth surface, and this makes the surface even warmer? Real science says the only way CO2 in the atmosphere could increase Earth surface temperatures by radiation is if the radiating CO2 is HOTTER than the surface. But it is the Sun warmed Earth surface which warms up the COLDER atmospheric CO2 in the first place, and therefore that CO2 can’t become HOTTER than the Sun warmed surface. COOLER atmospheric CO2 CAN’T increase warmer Earth surface temperatures and cause “Global Warming”. The “Greenhouse Effect” describes thermodynamic nonsense (a thermal Perpetual Motion scam!) with heat flowing from COLDER to HOTTER. Any detected “Global Warming” is not caused by atmospheric CO2. How could such a simple fact escape the attention of so many people and allow the CO2 hysteria to damage our way of life? (Former thermodynamics researcher who has identified a further 17 Climate Science thermodynamis errors!).

  8. Colorado Wellington says:

    Some therapists have proposed that the fearful and depressed young people enrolled in the University of Derby’s climate change anxiety classes would benefit from repeatedly listening to this single video even if they didn’t listen to anything else.

    Alas, these emotionally frail students will likely suffer a much deeper depression and anxiety when they start discovering the extent of the climate change fraud. Serious mental health problems cannot be treated by a shocking encounter with reality.

    With all respect to Dr Bird of the University of Derby, Colorado-based Dr Wellington believes even dance and drama may be too radical for some patients and he still favors traditional safe spaces with padded walls, gentle music, cuddly toys and a lot of crayons as the best introductory remedy. For stabilized patients, videos are included like this one of a puppy tearing up a Donald Trump toy. The medical profession cannot successfully treat climate grief without also addressing climate anger. Self-expression by dance and drama can be prescribed only to climate grief sufferers who responded well to earlier interventions. They already have enough drama in their lives.


    Dr Bird said helplessness can underline a lot of the feelings and that people don’t know how to process them as it’s something they have never felt before, and because many don’t know how it will pan out.

    Art is used during the sessions as a means of expression and those attending are encourage to share their work with each other in order to ‘make sense’ of how they are feeling.

    While the main aim is to tackle negative thoughts attendees are feeling, it also aims to find solutions to issues affecting the climate.

    Dr Bird claimed the sessions have been successful and have resulted in people feeling less anxious.

    He is now looking to expand the sessions by using dance and drama.

Leave a Reply

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