Quetzal
New member
You no evidence to support your overarching claim. Period.
Greenhouse effect revisited
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
ClimateSanity
New member
All the papers claiming a consensus have been thoroughly debunked. Judith Curry is one who did a devastating paper on the false consensus.
ClimateSanity
New member
There are at least five papers debunking the so called consensus. Judith Curry is one of them.
Quetzal
New member
If you say so, feel free to present your own evidence and data sets to the contrary. In the mean time, the rest of us will continue to ignore you morons who refuse to accept the evidence presented. Cya. :wave2:
ClimateSanity
New member
One paper shows that the effect of the atmosphere on temperature is much higher than 33 K than assumed by the IPCC.
The other paper shows that the water cycle affect on the climate is far greater than the absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases.
If you wish to discuss either of these papers that are now linked to in the OP, I will kindly respond. If you wish to hide from facts and ideas and play like children in a sandbox, I will ignore you.
The other paper shows that the water cycle affect on the climate is far greater than the absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases.
If you wish to discuss either of these papers that are now linked to in the OP, I will kindly respond. If you wish to hide from facts and ideas and play like children in a sandbox, I will ignore you.
Oh well, the National Review. That paragon of scientific reporting.
brewmama
New member
? It's pretty easy to see how the "97% consensus" claim is a lie. It's about that.
BigBoof1959
New member
I wonder if "climate change" scientists have plugged this into their eek-vay-zhunds?
I wonder if "climate change" scientists have plugged this into their eek-vay-zhunds?
Came across this while wasting more of my precious time on the net this morning - http://science1.nasa.gov/science-new...08/30oct_ftes/. I am no physicist, but I used to be an electrician and I know that if you have an iron core and magnetic pulses of various strength flowing past, you have an electrical transformer. I am wondering if the energy transfers involved in these magnetic pulses from the sun to earth have been factored into the "global warming" computer models. That energy has to be going somewhere.
I wonder if "climate change" scientists have plugged this into their eek-vay-zhunds?
Came across this while wasting more of my precious time on the net this morning - http://science1.nasa.gov/science-new...08/30oct_ftes/. I am no physicist, but I used to be an electrician and I know that if you have an iron core and magnetic pulses of various strength flowing past, you have an electrical transformer. I am wondering if the energy transfers involved in these magnetic pulses from the sun to earth have been factored into the "global warming" computer models. That energy has to be going somewhere.
gcthomas
New member
The Unified Theory paper misapplies thermodynamics, and declares that the temperature of the atmosphere is dependent on the pressure, whereas for a stable atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium the reverse is true. The authors declare this causal effect without a mechanism - in fact the mechanistic understandings imply the reverse of their claims. It is silly and counter-factual ramblings - no wonder this piece of trash has gone by thoroughly unnoticed by proper scientists.