@MOlschowy I go with what published evidence shows, not random arguments made up by non-experts. You can have as much armchair "argumentation" as you want that Earth is flat. When there's published empirical evidence that it's round, then you're wrong. 🤷
@1_physicist Why should I, other already did prove that oversimplified models neither are feasible to cope with modern climate models nor are they able to disprove earth's greenhouse effect, like https://t.co/y7ifIc01sj
@ClimSciJournal @BlasphemousBan1 @TheDisproof @MatthewWielicki where ρ is the density of GHGs in parts per volume." https://t.co/NVp8PkK6NL
@10kClimate If you don't understand how the greenhouse effect works, feel free to enroll in a grade-school-level science course before engaging in further science denialism on a topic you clearly don't understand. https://t.co/dqpRTexmfD https://t.co/RfcV
A simple trend analysis of high clouds in #ERA5 over 1979-2020 gives this result. This both interesting and perhaps a bit of a concern? Do we see a change in the #ITCZ, as suggested in https://t.co/jF58dGhcVI? @CopernicusECMWF @Meteorologisk https://t.co/n
Errors, bias, and cannot ascertain if trends are real... their own conclusion. Hence why AGW is still conjecture. https://t.co/94PgxxLAv9
@TheReverseThin1 Climate change is both science and affects society, and hence has a political relevance. Check out the article 'A mental picture of the greenhouse effect' for an introduction: https://t.co/jF58dGhcVI
Interesting @ed_hawkins: ESD Ideas: Global climate response scenarios for IPCC assessments https://t.co/k6nkXjKdi6. One question is how the rate of hydrological cycle overturning relates to GSAT. Smaller ECS & stronger change in rainfall patterns? E.
PapersOfTheDay "Greenhouse effect: The relative contributions of emission height and total absorption" https://t.co/o1EryzUDpm "A mental picture of the greenhouse effect: A pedagogic explanation" https://t.co/hM4uZbQYnX https://t.co/Z2BVXhplUd
https://t.co/dE4U2S3UyC "The outgoing long-wave radiation has become more diffuse over time," The above scientific treatise is actually endorsed by the folks at Real Climate inc Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA. That 1 statement from the abstract, shows the idioc
@karalissamuel What are you ranting about? It's textbook stuff. Go to a library. Or read articles like this https://t.co/vYDLbrvuc1 or this https://t.co/dn6aF7MfnD Or try a primer for lay people on the American Chemical Society website. https://t.co/W
@CycleJunkie88 @OldSchoolGamerP @SexyIsntSexist @kimchizzzle You're wrong. Try reading this: https://t.co/TAWm6H3ewo But first, you might want to learn how the 'greenhouse' effect works. Here's a couple of good articles: https://t.co/vYDLbrvuc1 https:/
A mental picture of the greenhouse effect https://t.co/DjCFEHu7ys
RT @RasmusBenestad: Vi fokuserer for mye på temperatur, som i oppslaget til @NRKno: https://t.co/llLSx8M3FP. Den glemte biten handler om v…
Vi fokuserer for mye på temperatur, som i oppslaget til @NRKno: https://t.co/llLSx8M3FP. Den glemte biten handler om vannets kretsløp: https://t.co/Um6DtsKG6M. @Meteorologisk @CICERO_klima @janfug
A mental picture of the greenhouse effect https://t.co/DjCFEHu7ys
@0nk3l1 @ToreFurevik @unnieik @MadsStostad @Nrk @bjornhs @mt_lund @Ketil_Isaksen @UiB @BjerknesBCCR @Meteorologisk Du tar kraftig feil på flere punkter. Jeg prøver meg på å dele en forenklet beskrivelse av drivhuseffekten: https://t.co/Um6DtsKG6M
@ElectricElecti1 @craigthomler Re: "Spectra are" OK, boomer. 😑 https://t.co/6yAKv9DsRu
RT @RasmusBenestad: @KHayhoe It's also important to remember the other side of the equation - why increased CO2 levels strengthen the #gre…
Re: "Sixth-grade students' progress in understanding the mechanisms of global climate change" Other relevant sources: "A mental picture of the greenhouse effect" https://t.co/TXHY1HFQDF "Physical-world knowledge and public views on climate change" https
The intellectual depth and power of persuasion of childish name-calling🙄. Do people really think these kind of people ought to have influence in policy😬😬😬. Following the Mann/Jones tradition, a devastating embarrassment for the klimutt cause.😳😳😳
However, how can a level higher up emit more heat than a level below it when there are less molecules at the higher level? Granted it may be true that all levels are warmer but the level at which most heat can escape to space can't change unless the no. of
https://t.co/dE4U2S3UyC Al Gore's Cult of climatology is saying "The vertical distance itself, however, is determined by GHGs". They are saying that the most IR that gets emitted to space is at 7300 metres and that level increase 23 metres every year.
However they are saying that as CO2 increases in atmos, that vertical distance is growing and that each layer is heating up every year so that a temperature at one level is now the temp 23 metres higher every year.
https://t.co/dE4U2S3UyC "The GHE is a result of a vertical distance between a planet’s surface, where energy from the sun is deposited, and higher aloft, where its heat loss back to space takes place. The vertical distance itself, however, is determined by
RT @ATomalty: However according to the equation Te should be the temperature at the top of the atmosphere(atmos). Also how can you assume a…
RT @ATomalty: https://t.co/dE4U2S3UyC In the bible of Al Gore's Cult of Climatology in equation 1 S0(1−A)/4=σTe^4, where S0 = incoming so…
However according to the equation Te should be the temperature at the top of the atmosphere(atmos). Also how can you assume an atmos by which you are calculating the ave albedo =30% and then calculate the temperature at the surface assuming no atmos?
https://t.co/dE4U2S3UyC In the bible of Al Gore's Cult of Climatology in equation 1 S0(1−A)/4=σTe^4, where S0 = incoming solar ave energy at top of atmos , A = ave albedo, σ = Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.67 x 10^-8 and Te is the equilibrium temp at su