starryEyedRebecca

Enjoy listening to music.

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@DrKutney Science has to make sense at a rational level. All your thousands of ‘peer reviewed studies’ are not worth a cent if the core thesis can’t be adequately explained.
That’s why you and this narrative have lost this argument.

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@Ceist8 @BigWaveDaveR3 Except it's evidence of nothing if the core thesis is fraudulent. I notice that in all your rantings and ravings you've never once mentioned the thermodynamic property that characterises an atmospheric "greenhouse gas". Here's someone who does:

https://t.co/zcunydy7kl

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@socratesccost Sure.
Here's what actually happens:

https://t.co/zcunydy7kl

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@JillBelch 2.2 For some real temperature trends consult your local thermometer, not indoctrinating, conflicted and corrupt media narratives:

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@JillBelch 1.2 There can be no greater fraudulent science than climate "science". For a start you'd be hard pressed to measure the temperature in a pot of soup to a tenth degree precision. Averaging temperatures is done for propaganda purposes only.
See:

https://t.co/zcunydy7kl

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@jeff_laycock @ProfSteveKeen It's one of those "make the lie big enough" things.
Climate "science" is one of the most fraudulent, agenda ridden, sloppy, data-impoverished sectors of modern research. Mainly fuelled by ideologically driven governments to serve as a blank cheque for policy making. Meanwhile...

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@JR07387638 @ProfSteveKeen The "narrative" focuses on infra-red and the attenuating effect of CO2, as if the atmosphere were a static pair of sunglasses where the molecules can't move. That fraudulent framing of the problem is guaranteed to give you a "CO2 warming" outcome.
However the atmosphere is fluid.

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@JR07387638 @ProfSteveKeen Empirical observations cannot be taken as evidence of flawed theories. There are long term fluctuations all over the planet that can last decades or centuries and have many causes.

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@JR07387638 @ProfSteveKeen 2/2 Adding an emissive gas does nothing to "trap" heat because: below the tropopause, convection transports any excessive heat heat upwards to maintain the lapse rate and AT the tropopause, Kirchoff's Law applies:

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@JR07387638 @ProfSteveKeen 1/2 None. The G/H effect is 2 things:
A. wavelength asymmetry (which simply results in heating from below instead of above)
B. adiabatic heating due to the presence of an atmosphere

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@ProfSteveKeen Must have been that 2 years of thermodynamics and 4 years of atmospheric physics I studied at undergraduate level that caused me to "fall for it" then.

Probably should've taken economics instead (not "neoclassical" though of course 😉).

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@ClintelOrg here is how the climate works - form 1st principles thermodynamics:

https://t.co/zcunydyF9T

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@SJG99 @hor22189 As a "socialist", have you ever reflected on the fact that role of the state is not to distribute wealth to the poor but to the rich ? For example, how do large multinationals get so big ? Government contracts.
What really is the role of taxation ? To underwrite money printing.

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@james_ptweets1 @cohler Arithmetically it exists ("global average"). But it's a meaningless and fraudulent metric which only exists for propaganda purposes.
A bit like if you take one temperature above your kitchen table, and one in the pizza oven, then call that the "mean kitchen temperature".

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@greenheroaf There can be no greater garbage science than ‘climate’ science. The G/H effect is 2 things: wavelength asymmetry and adiabatic temperature rise at the surface.
Adding CO2 does nothing because heat convects in the lower atmosphere even if more of it is captured at that level.

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@fionaharvey @ejwwest @aldavidson99 @guardian Just to save you some valuable typing time...

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@fionaharvey @SimonJonesMusic 1. You can make a ‘science’ out of just about anything, even if it’s based on flawed assumptions or poorly framed boundary conditions . In this case much of it is reverse engineering of long term weather trends using extremely impoverished data sets, and fraudulent practises.

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@DrKutney @ejwwest @fionaharvey @aldavidson99 @guardian You can troll ok, I'll give you that.
Understanding of technical aspects of atmospheric thermodynamics...not so much 🙂

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@ejwwest @fionaharvey @BurgessPark2 @aldavidson99 @guardian Not really. I just understand that the GH effect is wavelength asymmetry and adiabatic heating. Not ‘emissivity’. Sure you can make an industry out of claiming that it is, and lots of people will do ‘good science’ around it (NOT questioning the fundamental premise though).

[starryEyedRebecca @EyedRebecca]

@ejwwest @fionaharvey @aldavidson99 @guardian Those have only been happening for 10,000 years. Ever heard of controls ?
For a start, the ratio of surface area to volume of an ice block has 100 times more impact on accelerating its melting than another hundredth of 1% of CO2