"Green" policies are destroying this country

The new covid.same play book being rolled out again.#follow the science

Been there done that. A bit easier pulled after a bit of rain, but then a bit of rain makes the yellow b*st*rds grow faster.

I would be surprised it they are not growing somewhere in one of Dante`s circles of hell.

Bracken is mrking a big comeback around the countryside as well since the E.U. banned Asulox. Big debate nowadays in the E.U. if herbicides are carcinogenic. Ironic really when bracken is a carcinogenic and they have banned the herbicide that is species specific for controlling it. But then that is the E.U. nowadays. A lot of the time the right hand doesn`t have a clue as to what the left hand is doing.

Here you go: http://libgen.is/scimag/?q=Falsification+Of+The+Atmospheric

I've read all three papers -- Gerlich and Tscheuschner's original, Halpern et al's comments, and G&T's reply. I have to say I find Halpern et al far more convincing. G&T do an awful lot of irrelevant beating around the bush. Obviously I'm not a climate scientist, nor even a meteorologist, but I do have some vaguely relevant qualifications. (My masters is in astrophysics where the equations of radiative transfer are standard fare). G&T devote at least a third of their paper to a seemingly pointless exposition of radiative transfer, and to a straw man about a literal greenhouse effect that nobody is proposing.

Given they spent so much time on radiative transfer they also make a very strange argument that it is irrelevant to heat transfer. I don't think they are denying that atmospheric CO2 scatters longwave radiation that would otherwise be emitted to space. They make a straw man argument that it is not all scattered downward, but again nobody proposed that. They make yet another spurious claim that downward scattered radiation would violate the 2nd law, which Halpern easily refutes (because it is nonsense -- and seemingly ignorant of the thermal radiation and reciprocity laws of Kirchhoff, Helmholtz and Planck). The argument is not that heat flows from cold to hot, but that the temperature gradient is modified.

But their main claim that radiative transfer and heat transfer are unconnected would need a lot more than mere handwaving away. My understanding is that the half-lives of the various excited states of CO2 after absorbing IR are very short. The radiation will be re-emitted very quickly and I have read arguments that say the IR will therefore be lost to space very quickly in spite of CO2. But if you calculate the mean time between collisions of CO2 molecules in air (which is straightforward using the gas laws), it is much shorter than the excitation half life, so collisional de-excitation could easily convert the IR into mechanical heat. I'm not an expert, but G&T don't seem to address this at all.

The arguments about Global Circulation Models / Climate Models, on the other hand, are way above my pay grade. If I found the free time to devote to it it's something I would plan to understand much better. I frankly find it a bit fantastical to imagine that GCMs of relatively low resolution can capture all the dynamics of global warming evolution for decades or centuries ahead. But I am prepared to be persuaded.

Overall, I have no real problems with the basic physics of global warming. My problems are with uncertainties in the models, the popular fixation on implausible worst case scenarios, and the elevation of AGW to an "existential crisis" which demands that no resources are spared in the (almost certainly futile) quest for net zero. I believe that calming the hysteria and focusing on longer term more practical solutions is almost certain to leave us better off overall.

Dark-coloured objects heat up in sunlight shocker! LOL.

The BBC is really scraping the bottom of the barrel of sensationalist "climate" reporting.

You have to scroll a third of the way down the article to the rather less sensational: "Summertime is the busy time, so that's not surprising, but the numbers are a little bit higher than anticipated".

I've driven a black car around the US south in high summer. You touch that bodywork you are going to leave your skin stuck to it. Benjamin Franklin probably wasn't the first person to figure it out, but his 300 year old experiment seems to be news to the BBC.

I seen a tweet from Bjorn Lomborg pointing out that deception the other day. It's scandalous but not really surprising. Like using surface temps instead of air temps to really drive home the "emergency".

I learned during covid that there is a big difference between science and The science.

Wasn't it the same in California a couple of years ago as well? The local governments were not managing their forest areas properly and basically just left them to rot, leaving a plentiful supply of dried out firewood to keep feeding the fires once they were inevitably caused by arson.

It`s becoming like a farcial take off of the old guy with a beard in the Simpsons carton whose answer to anything relating to children is "That`s a paddling"

Excellent, can spend the savings on foreign holiday and weekend city breaks.