“Because it’s not about the environment, it’s not about science, it’s all about crony capitalism and the immiseration, impoverishment and control of the masses.” 🎯 Nevertheless, a fantastic win in this paper.
I'm away from home without my laptop, but I remember presenting evidence about a decade ago that it is physically impossible for atmospheric CO2 to cause any measurable increase in ocean temperatures because the IR can only penetrate a millimetre or so, unlike sunlight (as in an El Nino) which penetrates to a depth of many metres. Is this not so?
Yes, only the other day I was arguing with someone who insisted that the excess heat 'generated by GHGs' mostly goes into the oceans. The oceans can ONLY be heated by short wave solar energy which penetrates below the surface. The so called long wave 'back radiation' reflected back to earth by CO2 molecules can only penetrate as far as the microscopic 'skin layer'. The theory goes that as the skin layer is heated by LW infrared, it reduces the temperature difference between the water below and the air above and so reduces the transfer of heat from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, thus warming the oceans. That just sounds so implausible to me and the heat lost by wind driven evaporation from the surface must be vastly greater than that lost by direct contact with the air above through the modulating skin layer.
Revkin has lots of X posts denigrating Trump. He also states he will vote for Kamala!
I know, his opinion on climate science is a different thing from his political leanings. But is it? Kamala will have us continue down the road to complete totalitarianism, using "climate change" as one of the cudgels. So if he really believes climate change is much ado about nothing, why would he vote for someone who will continue to use it to impose totalitarian controls?
Yo have to be a moron to support Comrade Kamala - or a Communist. But he's done us a favour by sharing this paper online which rather pulls the rug out from beneath the feet of the eco-Communists.
Imagine that. Even when strictly keeping to model assumptions they are all wrong. The Iris effect is actually a simplification of complex system dynamics where compensation effects will occur at micro, meso and macro scales depending on the amount of available energy.
It also shows that once again a surface (be it ice or a fractal cloud) resulting in broadband emission is going to be a bigger contributor then “expanded IR bands”
Huh, I just realised. It's the anniversary of the Great Storm of 1987, which hit the south of Britain and northern France overnight on October15th/16th. It was officially an extra-tropical cyclone, but the winds reached hurricane force. How apt.
“Because it’s not about the environment, it’s not about science, it’s all about crony capitalism and the immiseration, impoverishment and control of the masses.” 🎯 Nevertheless, a fantastic win in this paper.
I'm away from home without my laptop, but I remember presenting evidence about a decade ago that it is physically impossible for atmospheric CO2 to cause any measurable increase in ocean temperatures because the IR can only penetrate a millimetre or so, unlike sunlight (as in an El Nino) which penetrates to a depth of many metres. Is this not so?
Yes, only the other day I was arguing with someone who insisted that the excess heat 'generated by GHGs' mostly goes into the oceans. The oceans can ONLY be heated by short wave solar energy which penetrates below the surface. The so called long wave 'back radiation' reflected back to earth by CO2 molecules can only penetrate as far as the microscopic 'skin layer'. The theory goes that as the skin layer is heated by LW infrared, it reduces the temperature difference between the water below and the air above and so reduces the transfer of heat from the ocean surface to the atmosphere, thus warming the oceans. That just sounds so implausible to me and the heat lost by wind driven evaporation from the surface must be vastly greater than that lost by direct contact with the air above through the modulating skin layer.
Revkin has lots of X posts denigrating Trump. He also states he will vote for Kamala!
I know, his opinion on climate science is a different thing from his political leanings. But is it? Kamala will have us continue down the road to complete totalitarianism, using "climate change" as one of the cudgels. So if he really believes climate change is much ado about nothing, why would he vote for someone who will continue to use it to impose totalitarian controls?
Yo have to be a moron to support Comrade Kamala - or a Communist. But he's done us a favour by sharing this paper online which rather pulls the rug out from beneath the feet of the eco-Communists.
Stunning work Jaime.shared far and wide.
Thanks JAS. It would be nice to get the word out there as far as possible.
Imagine that. Even when strictly keeping to model assumptions they are all wrong. The Iris effect is actually a simplification of complex system dynamics where compensation effects will occur at micro, meso and macro scales depending on the amount of available energy.
It also shows that once again a surface (be it ice or a fractal cloud) resulting in broadband emission is going to be a bigger contributor then “expanded IR bands”
Huh, I just realised. It's the anniversary of the Great Storm of 1987, which hit the south of Britain and northern France overnight on October15th/16th. It was officially an extra-tropical cyclone, but the winds reached hurricane force. How apt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_storm_of_1987