Zum Seitenende Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum
First the link to this week’s complete list as HTML and as PDF.
***
If events in Australia really were as retold by Reese, then a small-scale regional load dump would have sufficed and a state wide blackout could easily have been prevented. There’s something here, which we’re not being told about. That article smells of whitewash.
***
There is one detail both Zhang and Zhai et al. fail to mention: radiative cooling relies on and only works with clear skies. Granted, these are given for many worthwhile applications, but humidity is by far the larger problem than dry heat and it usually comes with hazy skies. The same is mostly true for all urban concentrations with high air conditioning loads. When dumping heat at above ambient temperatures, I doubt whether enhanced radiation can offer a meaningful fraction of the power demand.
***
Reading Foster et al. I was shocked by their equation 5. Redoing their numbers, it is not what the text implies, but even after adding in equation 3 we are left with 0.06 Km2/W of solar irradiation. Tiny fluctuations in solar output, that would be quite hard to detect or to measure, will lead to appreciable climatic outcomes even without feedbacks. Following their sources two things catch the eye. Lacis et al. actually and seriously speak of “doing the experiments”
when what they really mean is running model simulations. Regardless of how good the models may be, this is not the same thing. In their simulations Byrne & Goldblatt find a progressively increasing impact of rising carbon dioxide concentration which is the opposite of the saturation one would naively expect.
One point they all agree on is that the 30 K of warming above the blackbody equilibrium is all due to greenhouse. It seems that what I learnt in a physics lecture long ago, namely that radioactive heat from the earth’s interior and tidal churning also play a significant part, was wrong.
***
When Liebrand et al. find their data to be at variance with the political majority approved models, it is, of course, the measurement, that has to be wrong, never the modelling. And then there come Ludescher et al. and recklessly throw another spanner into the works. As most religions tend to find, it’s hard to stay a devout believer these days.
***
Naturally I enjoyed West’s comment, but speaking from experience I have to say, voracious reading is all good and dandy, but you need to add something more into the mixture to turn it into a success.
Zum Anfang Übersicht Artikel Home & Impressum