@bleasdale_r @AntipolisMy @Martin_Durkin Richard, CO2-driven-climate believers are very effective at lambasting, and claiming flaws. They don't seem to be so good at getting an actual rebuttal to any of his published work into a journal though. Talk is che
@socratesccost Nikolov and zeller had to reverse the spelling of their names. https://t.co/q8oaLYVwhu
Und ja, das Thema wurde mathematisch auseinander genommen und im Peer-Review veröffentlich. Da kam man auf -76°C. (https://t.co/bXoKEdiTXM)
RT @Sdg13Un: The atmosphere can appreciably heat a planet’s surface above the temperature of an airless environment receiving the same st…
The atmosphere can appreciably heat a planet’s surface above the temperature of an airless environment receiving the same stellar irradiance. On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect
@seaplaneguy You are confused abut the physical meaning of the emission temperature of -18C. Please read this paper for details: https://t.co/tz4NKfHJmy
@mwt2008 @Fynnderella1 BTW, it's very true that researchers will sometime include statements in the Conclusions of their papers that are not supported by the data, but are "politically correct" just to appease the reviewers and get their study published. I
RT @NikolovScience: This is a layman's summary of our new #climate concept emerging from analysis of recent NASA planetary observations fro…
@icarus62 @TonyClimate Anthropogenic global warming is not simple physics - it's the corruption of science. AGW is refuted by actual science: (1) https://t.co/ZtdI6jaKNZ (2) https://t.co/w9gqeI8gST (3) https://t.co/GJsOs9jsKt
@donato_valerio Per questo motivo:
@theresphysics @JosephHBorn @AutumnMandrake @_ClimateCraze @EthonRaptor I'm curious about your opinion on this @NikolovScience study. I don't fully understand it or its implications, but it seems to me that there are problems with IR emission from a disc v
@RSchunemann1 @stan_michaels4 @AndyNTyne @OtherBellamy @mikerflinn I suggest you start with their first paper. When you've read it and understand it, call again. https://t.co/AhJ2cW6tke
@Joe911S Realmente intorno a -75°C, tale è la temperatura media della luna, che ha più o meno lo stesso albedo terrestre. L’effetto serra non esiste. https://t.co/V8oN6JFgy3
RT @NikolovScience: @SteB777 @IPCC_CH FYI, we already have peer-reviewed published papers. They are discussed in the video. Here are the li…
RT @NikolovScience: @SteB777 @IPCC_CH FYI, we already have peer-reviewed published papers. They are discussed in the video. Here are the li…
@SteB777 @IPCC_CH FYI, we already have peer-reviewed published papers. They are discussed in the video. Here are the links: - https://t.co/tz4NKfIhc6 - https://t.co/K2GW8t5yhA You need to stop theorizing pointlessly, and actually sturdy our published rese
@edarna @WorkerHere @Veritatem2021 In this peer reviewed paper, a proper spherical derived temp profile of the Moon to establish the true gasless temperature was done to determine the true magnitude of the GHE, confirmed by NASA Diviner data. The GHE is 90
@dwright100 @donkerwater @_ClimateCraze Sunlight heating the land & oceans, & the atmosphere absorbing the heat kinetically is nearly all of the GHE. Atmosphere raises earth's temp by 90K, not 33K, b/c of the heat capacity of atmospheric pressure &
@Technocorp @dwright100 @_ClimateCraze Speaking of spherical geometry, this paper re-analysed Moon's temp as a proper sphere instead of the flat disc derivation SB shortcut, & confirmed results using NASA Diviner data. Found Moon high 50s K cooler than
@Technocorp @dwright100 @_ClimateCraze Speaking of spherical geometry, this paper re-analysed Moon's temp as a proper sphere instead of the flat disc derivation SB shortcut, & confirmed results using NASA Diviner data. Found Moon high 50s K cooler than
@AutumnMandrake @twit4thot @HuppenthalJohn @MasterC19470576 @ctsbillc @ddebernardy @tim_dunkerton Their other earlier paper hasn't been rebutted in the peer reviewed literature either. It reports empirical data from the DIVINER experiment and demonstrates
@CherylBozarth @petrtalla @_ClimateCraze 33K GHE is wrong and too small, and this is proven by looking at the Moon https://t.co/prMBTW6zF6
Those "climate modeling" guys couldn't even calculate the correct magnitude of Earth's atmospheric thermal enhancement, they're still making bullshit model 10 years after this. https://t.co/zbzUknhfD7
@ChrisMartzWX Check out this: https://t.co/1KnAxgUs6o
@R18Jcs @CliveScott18 The paper I linked has not been withdrawn, click on the link and see for yourself. Their second paper wasn't withdrawn for any scientific reason, but due to the use of author pseudonyms. https://t.co/AhJ2cW6tke
@R18Jcs @CliveScott18 Please take the time and effort to actually study the paper. We can't debate this properly until you do. The basic equation result is miles out for the Moon compared to empirical measurements made by the DIVINER experiment on the luna
@RogerHallamCS21 The "greenhouse" conjecture was always a total joke, worthless junk "science"! The atmospheric heating is explained by the air pressure, convection and heat absorption by water, not chemical composition and radiosity. https://t.co/kIsVV0TW
RT @NikolovScience: @Vlaamse_Zaak @7_Sages_Wotcm This Equation is now dated. The current equation for calculating the global temperature of…
@Vlaamse_Zaak @7_Sages_Wotcm This Equation is now dated. The current equation for calculating the global temperature of an airless spherical body is Eq. 14 in this paper: https://t.co/tz4NKfIhc6
RT @NikolovScience: @PvtMcAuslan @KarlErbach @maralago_ Correct! We published a paper in 2014 that explains the physical and mathematical f…
RT @NikolovScience: @PvtMcAuslan @KarlErbach @maralago_ Correct! We published a paper in 2014 that explains the physical and mathematical f…
RT @NikolovScience: @PvtMcAuslan @KarlErbach @maralago_ Correct! We published a paper in 2014 that explains the physical and mathematical f…
RT @NikolovScience: @PvtMcAuslan @KarlErbach @maralago_ Correct! We published a paper in 2014 that explains the physical and mathematical f…
RT @NikolovScience: @PvtMcAuslan @KarlErbach @maralago_ Correct! We published a paper in 2014 that explains the physical and mathematical f…
RT @NikolovScience: @PvtMcAuslan @KarlErbach @maralago_ Correct! We published a paper in 2014 that explains the physical and mathematical f…
RT @NikolovScience: @PvtMcAuslan @KarlErbach @maralago_ Correct! We published a paper in 2014 that explains the physical and mathematical f…
@PvtMcAuslan @KarlErbach @maralago_ Correct! We published a paper in 2014 that explains the physical and mathematical falseness of the 33 K GE for Earth: https://t.co/tz4NKfIhc6 This paper has been viewed 22,000 times. Yet, it's not cited or acknowledged b
@clivehbest I think also the same are both brilliant, but for some reason, were refused to be published in three mayor peer review journals. I don't know why. By the way, i also found this one, that if its true, could be really important for the state of s
@LordBeardey @torsteingya Som tidligere sagt to av paperene har basert peer review. Men for all del fortsett med påstandene dine i øst og vest https://t.co/FcIosVsGaE https://t.co/GFTSDyB91M
Back 👇
Ned is worth a follow is you are looking for a real discussion and how the weather changes.
RT @Nikolov_Science: @EcoSenseNow I'm not sure what you call "garbage", but the profound mathematical incorrectness of the 33C Greenhouse E…
@EcoSenseNow I'm not sure what you call "garbage", but the profound mathematical incorrectness of the 33C Greenhouse Effect estimate has been confirmed by other researchers since our 2014 paper on this topic (https://t.co/aZklaXMmgp). See Kramm et al (2022
@AStratelates There are more but I found two of the studies I looked at. https://t.co/B8h2iXZItq https://t.co/noKaT2FZDr
"197.3 K the first physically robust estimate of the Moon’s true average global surface temperature reported in the scientific literature." On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect http
Tmoon = 197.3 K To our knowledge, this is the first physically robust estimate of the Moon’s true average global surface temperature reported in the scientific literature. On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies ....... https://t.co/W2gyByo
@ProfSandwich @chillywillers The models we use to attempt to justify AGCC are not accurate, it is a non-science where we cannot experiment and reality doesn't jive with the predictions, we have no reason to take action that we cannot predict the outcomes f
@RSalgadoDArcy I'll get to it right after the publication of your rebuttal of the "laughable use of Holder's inequality" in this Springer paper: https://t.co/AhJ2cW6tke
@RSalgadoDArcy You're really not worth talking to, but in case you decide to educate yourself, I'll leave you with something worth reading. https://t.co/AhJ2cW6tke
@Mark72781 @TeckaCZ @memcculloch I suggest you read this paper about working out the global average surface temperature of airless bodies such as the Moon to start appreciating the issues involved, such as Holders inequality between integrals. https://t.co
RT @NikolovScience: This is a layman's summary of our new #climate concept emerging from analysis of recent NASA planetary observations fro…
RT @NikolovScience: This is a layman's summary of our new #climate concept emerging from analysis of recent NASA planetary observations fro…
RT @NikolovScience: This is a layman's summary of our new #climate concept emerging from analysis of recent NASA planetary observations fro…