/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... |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
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... |
|
| | | | | ||
| | | | |
andymaypetrophysicist.com
By Andy May To read this post in German see here, translation by Christian Freuer. The IPCC and the climate "consensus" believe that essentially all warming since 1750 is due to man's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases as shown in figure 1 here or in (IPCC, 2021, p. 961). This has led to... |
|
| | | |||
