1. This document more than any other debunks the #ClimateScam & shows temperatures are fully accounted for without recourse to Co2. It describes the role of emissivity (G/H gas property) & shows it has zero effect at thermal equilibrium.
#ClimateAction gvigurs.wordpress.com/2019/04/28/the…
#ClimateAction gvigurs.wordpress.com/2019/04/28/the…
2. Heat is not a liquid. There is no "trapping" or "blocking" (which aren't even thermodynamic terms).
It is absorbed and re-radiated at equilibrium (by definition). Emissivity is a RATE of absorption. It does not mean the gas absorbs MORE heat. (See Kirchoff's thermal radiation)
It is absorbed and re-radiated at equilibrium (by definition). Emissivity is a RATE of absorption. It does not mean the gas absorbs MORE heat. (See Kirchoff's thermal radiation)
3. There is an expertise mismatch in the industry. The people best qualified to do thermodynamic heat balance appraisals on the planet are not "climate scientists" or geologists but thermodynamic engineers such as gas turbine designers.
See one such appraisal at the thread start.
See one such appraisal at the thread start.
4. The climate is theoretically modelled by taking account of heat and work. The Boltzman radiative equilibrium temp. is observed at the tropopause where heat transfer by convection ceases. The surface temperature is then determined by projecting the lapse rate to the surface.
4. The deranged idea whereby the planetary climate is expressed as a single spot temperature is somewhat arbitrary, never mind claiming to measure it in decimal points of a degree.
See here for some REAL spot temperatures and note that there is zip happening to the climate.
See here for some REAL spot temperatures and note that there is zip happening to the climate.
5. There is no need for "peer review" because the burden of proof is not on those who show that established laws (far more established than 'climate science') account perfectly well for the planet's energy balance & temperatures without recourse to any "Co2 trapping" assertion
6. It's not that that "science is wrong". It's that the whole basis of climate science is about reverse engineering weather trends to try to justify a theory that is provably false.
The earth is an open system: power in = power out no matter how much Co2 there is.
The earth is an open system: power in = power out no matter how much Co2 there is.
7. The "narrative" makes much of the fact that we are not in "equilibrium" and that empirical measurements of radiative flux in and out differ. There is nothing unnatural about oscillatory deviations from aggregate states and it isn't caused by Co2.
8. There is a genuine ‘greenhouse effect’. But the thermodynamic property of emissivity does not enhance or diminish that effect to the extent that radiative equilibrium temperature is raised (which would be required for ‘climate change’).
‘Peer review’ has never shown otherwise.
‘Peer review’ has never shown otherwise.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
