/explore
|
You are here 
|
scienceofdoom.com | ||
| | | | |
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. | |
| | | | |
tallbloke.wordpress.com
|
|
| | | | | A while ago I posted a tongue in cheek thread about the old Keihl and Trenberth Earth energy budget diagram and the new shiny all colour one NASA now has on their website. Here they are again for comparison: The major difference between these diagrams is the 'surface radiation' from the surface to the atmosphere... | |
| | | | |
climateguy.blogspot.com
|
|
| | | | | The original version of this article was published on the Activist Teacher blog on May 8, 2011. The present (SECOND version) is the May 12, ... | |
| | | | |
judithcurry.com
|
|
| | | by Judith Curry On the Pierrehumbert thread, I stated: So, if you have followed the Climate Etc. threads, the numerous threads on this topic atScienceofdoom, and read Pierrehumbert's article, is anyone still unconvinced about the Tyndall gas effect and its ... Continue reading | ||
