But I concluded that the guy didn't know what he was talking about, or more likely was intentionally misrepresenting
radiative heat transfer science.
Not exact matches
The core
science, the
radiative transfer equations that determine the way increasing CO2 increases the temperatures gradient between the emission altitude and the surface, derived from military research on
heat seeking missile and detection systems.
«Never forget that climatology is not even a field, much less a
science: «Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture... the
radiative component of
heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures.
In the latter case it is about
heat transfer and the way climate
science has bungled the thermodynamics, in the former it is not about the
radiative greenhouse effect as that is not about reflection.
This would get beyond the settled
science part of
radiative heat transfer physics that most of us (including Judy) accepts and puts more emphasis into the context of «to what extent» will it influence our climate over what period of time.
The
radiative heat transfer physics I am using is standard from long before climate
science borrowed the incorrect two - stream approximation from astrophysics and made the mistake, from meteorology, of assuming a pyrometer measures energy flux instead of a temperature signal.