“Using A New Method”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to “Using A New Method”

  1. Mikey0 says:

    Keep fighting, Tony. Thank you for all that you are doing. I can’t. I’m far too lazy.

  2. arn says:

    The Washingto Post headline is the essence of everything that is wrong
    within climate psychopathy.

    Even when they can no longer keep the lie alive(hurricane increase)
    they will
    somehow manage to give even the absence of destructive forces as hurricanes a negative spin(already in the headlines.)

    That’s like claiming that
    the absence of atom bomb drops in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a bad thing.

  3. Louis Gatto says:

    It’s become all so painfully obvious that “Government”, the “MSN”, Big Banking, Big Pharma and “Big Health Care” industries are all alined to one purpose these days… and that is to, in my opinion, dismantle (and discredit) the middle class -no healthy middle class -no real democracy.

    …Good for the Psychopaths at the top of the ant hill, and bad for all the rest of us…

  4. As usual Tony. Excellent!

  5. Kenyon says:

    Hello Tony, I’m Kenyon.

    I thoroughly enjoy your videos, and wanted to share an experience as you may gleen some useful topics for future videos.

    One day I posted an observation of mine on a Jungian FB group that said: “of all the religions in the world, Science is the one with the greatest amount of hubris.” Within three days it had over 400 responses comprising the spectrum of viewpoints and arguments. The remarkable thing was that there was no consensus.

    All the activity prompted me to revisit the actual definition of the word ‘science’.

    After looking through my collection of dictionaries going back to the mid 1800s, I was surprised by the absence of a clear concise standard definition. I looked online at the latest academic institutional references and was met with more vagaries.

    Of all the words in the English language one would think ‘science’ would have a precise definition. Alas, not the case.

    I have come to recognize the very meaning of the word has been watered down to be a vague abstraction.

    This supports anther viewpoint of kine that science is a myth and does not exist. The only thing that does exist is the scientific method. After all, when science became a noun it became a religion.

    I hope my writing here is of benefit in your highly respectable work. Feel free to reply. I’m happy to have a chat. Thanks.

    -Kenyon

  6. hotwire says:

    if you were under 25 you may be tempted to think comets were mythical, especially if you were told that old people are all evil and demented.

  7. Mr. Heller,

    I’ve been pondering this idea that energy can be “trapped” in a 2D ‘area’ for the last few days and I’m having a hard time getting it to work out.

    We hear that CO2 is responsible for trapping 2W/m^2, but where? Most of the literature says Top of Atmosphere which is defined as 100,000 meters above the surface. So 1361W/m^2 is coming in and only 1359 can get out.

    2W is not being trapped in a 2 dimensional slice of space at 100km above the planet, right? So it seems that in reality 2W is being trapped within 100,000 cubic meters below it. We know that the air is very thin above the Troposphere so most of that 2W is being trapped within 12,000 cubic meters (Tropopause ~18km in Tropics and ~6km at poles).

    I’ve done some estimating of how many joules per meter cubed is in a column of air and it seems there is about 354,000 joules of energy in cubic meter of air at 15C with a density of 1.225kg per m^3 (at 1 ATM, sea level). At the tropopause the there is about .324kg/m^3 and the temp is around -55C so there is around 70,800 joules/m^3. Averaging and adding up the energy within a 12,000 m^3 column of air we end up with around 2.5 Billion joules in a column of air up to the Tropopause. Most of the Surface of the earth is covered by a layer of sea water with an average energy density of around 1.137 Billion joules/m^3. So CO2 is trapping 2W/12,001m^3 along with ~3.637 Billion other Joules.

    It gets kind of screwy when you talk about there being 86,400 seconds in a day so CO2 traps 31.5 Million joules a year, but is that forever? Are there periods of cooling to offset the CO2 “forcing”? It gets even more screwy when you consider that the atmosphere is elastic and grows and shrinks Daily and Seasonally as energy fluctuates. PV=nRT shows that T decreases as V increases if P stays relatively the same, and while P is somewhat constant, it changes as well.

    The problem lies in climate “scientists” using the Stefan Boltzman equation, that is for a 2D Black body that has NO MASS and NO SPECIFIC HEAT, to make predictions for a planet and atmosphere that has billions of trillions of tons of Mass and several more variables to consider.

    Have you ever pondered this issue? Can you see the dilemma?

  8. Ulric Lyons says:

    It’s interesting looking at CET temperatures during those big hurricane years.
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

Leave a Reply

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