En sjelden gang leser man noe som får en i godt humør. Denne fra debattant
Gordon Robertson hos Roy Spencer er i skikkelig perle! Jeg tar med noe av det, og dette er en ramsalt kritikk av Roy Spencer, og til dels John Christy for å være så feige at de godtar selve drivhusteorien/CO2-hypotesen:
When you consider that all GHGs account for roughly 1% of atmospheric gases, it’s like taking a greenhouse with 100 panes of glass and removing 99 of the panes. Exactly how much heat will that produce in the atmosphere…certainly not 33C?
You produced a thought experiment to show how the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not necessarily claim that heat must flow from a warmer source to a colder source. Sorry, Roy, as much as I respect you as a climate scientist, I thought you were all wet on that one too.
When you have a surface warming 1% of the gases in an atmosphere, and only 1/1000 of 1% in the case of anthropogenic gases, it’s absurd to claim that such a rare gas, radiating in a very narrow bandwidth, could possibly raise the surface temperature, as in AGW theory.
I klartekst, 1/1000 del av det ene glassvinduet som finnes i drivhuset er menneskene skyld i, og dette skal i følge Kenneth Trenberth varme jordas overflate mer enn sola gjør.
Et eller annet må være riv ruskende galt!