Tony Heller's Incisive 20-minute video unpacking climate-scientist incompetence

Superb recent video by Tony Heller: "Basic Science For Climate Scientists".

Heller is correct to point out that modelers are detached from the real world, and that virtually none of the "climate scientists" know or understand radiation transfer physics.

I reviewed all the statements regarding the radiation physics. Although the language does not use precise technical expressions, all the positions expressed in the video are correct, to my eyes. I find no error of physics.

One statement in the video borders on incorrect: "The upward infra-red is absorbed by greenhouse gases, thus the atmosphere warms and you get the greenhouse effect." That is almost too much of an over-simplification. Actually, resonant absorption and re-mission of the IR photon by a greenhouse-effect-active molecule does not itself warm the atmosphere. There is both resonant re-emission (temperature-independent) and blackbody emission (temperature-dependent) of IR from the atmosphere. But that is technical detail, taken into account in radiation transfer models...

Note: I think portraying Arrhenius as some crank is unjustified. Arrhenius was a brilliant scientist in many areas, and was the first to set down the concept of a planetary atmospheric Greenhouse effect, which was largely correct and very insightful. I have used his "Arrhenius law" of barrier-crossing rates many times in my own fundamental research.

Anthropogenic CO2 predicted to postpone the next ice age by at least 100,000 years --Nature article

Commentary by Denis Rancourt


Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is a leading member of the global-warming scientific elite:

"In 2012, he was the lead-author of a report commissioned by the World Bank on possible impacts of a 4 degrees Celsius warming towards the end of the 21st century. This report received a lot of attention worldwide. That same year, Schellnhuber presented the keynote at the gala dinner that opened the high-level segment of the world climate summit COP18 in Doha, Qatar. In the presence of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon and UNFCCC's boss Christiana Figueres, a few days later Schellnhuber signed an agreement with the Qatar Foundation to jointly create a Climate change research institute in Qatar - a remarkable step as the country's wealth for decades had been based on exporting fossil fuels." [Wikipedia]

His recent 2016 co-authored paper in Nature contains the conclusions:

"moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years"

and

"our results suggest that anthropogenic interference will make the initiation of the next ice age impossible over a time comparable to the duration of previous glacial cycles."

I would say that those consequences of an increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere -- to the extent that the climate models can reliably be used for climate predictions -- are significant benefits to both humans and the planet, which far outweigh any negative consequences that have been projected and imagined.

Whereas it is difficult to establish a causal link between increased CO2 and any specific human suffering or environmental disaster, there can be no doubt that an ice age is a change in climate and that an ice age would be negative for life on Earth.

To be specific, there is a scientific consensus that an ice age would create large population migrations and associated political tensions possibly leading to wars, global loss of forests, a large drop in global mean surface temperature, massive loss of biodiversity over extended regions, collapse of agriculture, heightened threats to endangered species, loss of bees, perturbed migration patterns, and so on.

Few animal species would benefit from an ice age. The exceptions being cold-region animals such as polar bears.

Although fossil fuel extraction is largely motivated by state power and corporate profit, an unintended side affect may be to have postponed the certain environmental mega disaster of the next ice age, if we can believe climate modellers?

I think we should use some of the next thousand years or so to develop democracy and diplomacy tools (plenty of opportunity for development in those areas) just in case the modellers don't have all the details worked out yet and some of that unavoidable cooling starts to kick in sooner than expected. We know it's coming, modellers or no modellers.

I love this media article!

Earth heading for 'mini ice age' within 15 years

Research has predicted a new solar 'Maunder minimum' in the 2030s

The Telegraph

By Dan Hyde

11:35AM BST 

11 Jul 2015

Hilarious. Solar physics expert makes his point... Hilarious.

Here be the scientific article itself:

Heartbeat of the Sun from Principal Component Analysis and prediction of solar activity on a millenium timescale
V. V. Zharkova, S. J. Shepherd, E. Popova & S. I. Zharkov
Scientific Reports 5, Article number: 15689 (2015)
doi:10.1038/srep15689