Explore >> Select a destination
|
You are here 
|
scienceofdoom.com | ||
| | | | |
climateofsophistry.com
|
|
| | | | | I think that it is better to use a spherical Earth with the real solar input to do an energy budget, rather than a flat Earth with 1/4 the solar input like peer-reviewed and pedagogical climate science does things. It makes a difference, because with 1/4 solar input of S(1-a)/4, this equates to a solar... | |
| | | | |
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com
|
|
| | | | | The Arrhenius radiative greenhouse effect proponents, h aving abandoned "back-radiation" from greenhouse gases as the explanation of the gr... | |
| | | | |
jennifermarohasy.com
|
|
| | | | | CLIMATEis complex but in an attempt to understand the effects of increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide on global temperatures simplified General Circulation Models (GCMs) have been developed and are used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Al Gore, in his famous movie 'An Inconvenient Truth', explained that as the concentration [...] | |
| | | | |
wattsupwiththat.com
|
|
| | | Just as in Part I, in Part II I find numbers applied to fundamental concepts that are small but with uncertainty estimates I cannot reconcile nor find entirely credible. The entire topic of climate change appears to be like this; guided by numbers and measurements that need to be certain within 0.1% but are often 10 or 100 times worse. Is the cloud feedback positive? I don't know. There is a lot of weather to sort through to find out. However, if it is positive that is not necessarily a bad thing as explained in Part III. | ||
