/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. | |
| | | | |
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... | |
| | | | |
wattsupwiththat.com
|
|
| | | | | Slicing the earth's data has revealed expected correlation of sun angle to cloud fraction, VPD, and Enthalpy and interesting correlation to land fraction. The land fraction seems to be related to a change in the ET of the land. | |
| | | | |
skepticalscience.com
|
|
| | | The human fingerprint in global warming is evident in multiple lines of empirical evidence - in satellite measurements of outgoing infrared radiation, in surface measurements of downward infrared radiation, in the cooling stratosphere and other metrics. | ||
