https://principia-scientific.com/satellite-measurements-dont-support-global-warming-claims/
My reply:
[[But first, NASA tells us high clouds are much colder than low clouds and the surface and so they radiate less energy to space than low clouds do. And because high clouds absorb energy so efficiently, they have the potential to raise global temperatures.]]
[[If more high clouds were to form, more heat energy radiating from the surface and lower atmosphere toward space would be trapped in the atmosphere, and Earth’s average surface temperature would climb.]]
This is so zany. High clouds exist in a frigid zone of the atmosphere, and no matter how much heat energy they absorb from the surface, that doesn't send it back down and rewarm the surface with its own heat. It doesn't even raise their temperature since the low temperatures swamp faint surface IR out. Look at the lapse rate and show me the big kinks.
This is the kind of junk science the IPCC is known for.to keep their CO2 warming hoax going. They completely ignore convection as the fuel for the atmosphere's Carnot heat engine that drives winds and storms, and wastes radiation with entropy. In their sick book radiation is the only energy transfer mechanism and there is no entropy to upset their fake Earth-Sun radiation balance. Every time winds mess up the Earth's "hair", throwing trees and houses around along with dirt, a bunch of the original solar radiation has been lost to entropy and can't return to space.
But even sicker is the truth that only the Sun's 5500C radiation can heat the Earth's surface, and CO2's puny -80C radiation can't do anything. In the IPCC hoax, photons don't have temperature, thus -80C photons can heat the Earth as much as 5500C photons, like trying to find a pony in the manure.
My, my, what the kept IPCC scientists will do to keep their $150 trillion mass extortion scheme going.
https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-the-Suns-radiation-when-it-gets-the-Earth-s-atmosphere/answer/TL-Winslow
No comments:
Post a Comment