dailysceptic.org/2024/06/02/to-use-terms-like-global-boiling-is-clearly-absolute-nonsense/
"Der Faschismus der Zukunft wir nicht sagen: Ich bin der Faschismus. Er wird sagen: Ich bin der Antifaschismus!" - Ignacio Silone
As for Plimer, despite the possible attempt to cast doubt on his credibility, the claims that he rejects the scientific consensus on climate change and that he has been criticised by climate scientists, are factually accurate. Plimer backs this up with his characteristic humorous remark. “I thank Wikipedia for telling me that I’m a true scientist. I’ve never followed this consensus and the scientists have to use evidence. We don’t use what our peers say,” he says.
Science and belief don’t mix. “Science is married to evidence and we come to conclusions based on evidence,” Plimer says, adding that as new evidence comes to light, conclusions have to change. He cites the example of how he has had the pleasure to correct his own scientific conclusions as some of the research he had published years ago has subsequently had to be refuted by new data and a better understanding of the research topic at hand. “I’ve criticised myself and I think that’s what science is about. It’s all about criticism,” he says. However, as soon as someone uses exaggerations about climate change, such as the oceans are boiling or so on, or talks about believing or not believing in climate change, it is not science, but propaganda, he explains.
Plimer also points out that ice core studies have shown that every time the climate warms, the temperature rises first, and only then does the CO2 level in the atmosphere rise. The reason why more CO2 is getting released is because the ocean is warming – colder water withholds more CO2, and as the ocean warms more CO2 is released.
“The only thing about renewable energy is that the subsidies are renewable. The subsidies just keep coming. If we had no subsidies, we would have no so-called renewable energy. And if we had wind and solar competing on a level playing field with nuclear, with coal, with gas, with hydro, then we probably wouldn’t see a wind turbine or solar facility anywhere in the world,” Plimer says.
Another important factor that cannot be overlooked is the real environmental impact, or real environmental damage, of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles and other ‘green technologies’ that are said to save the climate.
See? That's climate change. You didn't expect this...
Soweit bekannt etwickeln deutsche Politiker gerade die relevante Industrie der Zukunft, insofern sind die wichtigen Länder jene die unserem Beispiel folgen.
Wenn diese Länder aber auf Kohle- und Atomstrom setzen läuft da offenbar was falsch.
Wo haben die die Umfrage gemacht? Auf Sylt?
Hottest 12 months
Every single month at any location has been the hottest one since the beginning of the last glaciation? Or do they take some average?
They report "Megafossil Carbon Dating Indicates Sweden Was 2-3°C Warmer Than Today During The Last Glacial" - did Sweden really have its hottest 12 months since 125k years?
Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect.
The rest of your comments and questions are hard to relate to anything in a Physics textbook.
That's somehow strange because the troposphere can be considered a heat engine or Carnot cycle and the "greenhouse" theory could be seen as a competing theory of how the atmosphere works.
Air can be warmed by thermal conduction, thermal convection, or thermal radiation. Those are the 3 main forms of heat transfer.
All of them, let's include evaporation, have a cooling effect on the sun warmed surface of Earth. Now there they claim GHG's do have some warming effect on air - I don't see where this should happen, and how.
you question simply expresses the First Law of Thermodynamics
You say it yourself, the energy is converted and that work is an essential part - where is work done in the "greenhouse" effect? When we look at the model there's no conversion happening, it's always simply "energy", equations. "Climate science" forgets about the second part of the 1st LoT.
Gases do absorb electromagnetic radiation and their temperature does increase
Is this really the case? The air is warmed at the surface by conduction, 100% of it.
Then, does IR really make air GHG's warm? This would mean IR increases the velocity of a single molecule that should result in a measurable increase of the average kinetic energy. While this IR is emitted by a cooling gas and they found out the distance photon could travel is about 10 meters.
I don't see how IR will in any case make air hotter.
Using the ideal gas law for an idealized model as an approximation to reality, based on empirical evidence and observations isn't a mistake, otherwise nobody would use the standard atmosphere. What we want to know is the lapse rate and here the model comes close to reality, it can be measured. But you can't measure the "greenhouse" effect which is based on radiative heat transfer equations, the fudge factor.
We have these universal rules (ideal gas law, laws of thermodynamics and we also have a model, the standard atmosphere. In the end the troposphere is a heat engine. We have the modelled surface air temperature of 15°C and the lapse rate, this lapse rate is what they think is the "greenhouse" effect.
energy is not a number of photons
They are always talking about "more and less" energy, a colder body emits "less" energy - but imo it's not about the quantity but quality, a colder body will emit less energetic radiation, there's no "average" photon if they want to talk about single photons.
started that paper talking about the radiation incident on the top of the ocean and how it distributes through the depth of the water
I think the general problem here is that they are searching for an universal concept that applies to all planetary bodies and the goal is to determine the surface temperature. Ask alarmists how the IPCC observed the 15°C surface temperature, the basis of their energy budget. Nobody measured this value.
If we look at Venus we know the high near surface air temperature SAT is the result of the enormous pressure where CO2 becomes supercritical - here the atmosphere will indeed warm the surface - but we can't do this with Earth, because it rotates much faster and the oceans play a vital role in maintaining the temperature - they simply set the heat capacity to zero and move on, thing their model still represent reality. So stupid.
India's government-run weather bureau said Wednesday a station measurement showing a potentially record-breaking temperature in the capital may have been due to a fault in the measuring equipment.
"Mungeshpur reported 52.9 degrees Celsius (127.2 Fahrenheit) as an outlier compared to other stations," the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said in a statement, referring to a station in a Delhi suburb.
"It could be due to error in the sensor or the local factor. IMD is examining the data and sensors."
The department said it operates five major weather monitoring sites and 15 automatic weather stations -- including the one in Mungeshpur -- which take temperature and rainfall observations across the capital.
Apart from Mungeshpur, those sites recorded a maximum temperature over Delhi on Wednesday that "varied from 45.2C to 49.1C", the statement added.
Another Sensor Error! Nagpur Temperature Log at 56° Likely Erroneous Due To THIS Reason, Says MeT
Nagpur did not log 56 degree temperature, said India's Regional Meteorological Centre on Friday saying that the erroneous reading was due to sensor malfunction.
number of photons in any computer program used as a climate model
They simply call it energy and to make it make sense for them they use photons as the explanation. The idea comes from this article - here we can see that they think their model represents reality (Fig.1) and that "climate science" doesn't understand how an insulation works (last page: "Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation." - air too!
If the outgoing thermal radiation doesn't match the incoming radiation from the sun, then the planet temperature will rise or fall until they balance.
This would be the case for a planet without an atmosphere, when we take a look at the temperature profile of Earh with its atmosphere the energy in=energy out idea doesn't fit anymore because the incoming sunlight is converted into work and here radiation is only a waste product; air isn't hot because it radiates but because there's work done, temperature of a gas is defined as the average kinetic energy of the molecules.
Within air radiative heat transfer doesn't increase this temperature under normal conditions - if this were the case the incoming, more energetic light would warm the air but this doesn't happen. There's a surface needed where the air conducts and warms.
Apparently there is a connection between cleaner fuels for ships and cloud formation, which means more sunshine and higher temperatures.
And because what should not be cannot be, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research warns. What a surprise.
There is absorption and re-emission by intervening gas molecules in the atmosphere, which is the basis of the "greenhouse effect".
How does this absorption and re-emission change the temperature of a gas? Can you name where this happens IRL?
the temperature would increase with no bound.
Why didn't Venus melt and finally end up as a CO2 black star?
What's the forcing then?
Alarmists can't even stand to teir own (IPCC) standards.
"First, Radiation Is Blocked From Leaving The Earth. Next, There's An Imbalance. Then, The Earth Has To Heat Up In Response." Ever Wonder Why They Built This Backwards?
climateskeptics