quote:
Hey suricat
Have you had a look at the pdf that I posted?
I first saw it on CA at the version that I linked to, haven't seen the published version though( something to do with actually paying for the priv.)
I've bought a "dongle" for my laptop so I'm able to download stuff better now. I've seen this paper before and it's a long read so I really don't want to read it again. However, (when I did read it) it seems to be in general agreement with my direction of understanding, which is:
CO2 is too sparse to be a major contributor to atmospheric warming; back radiation is an apparent effect and not a cause (in analogy, a bit like registering 'back EMF' [EMF = electromotive force, or volts] in only part of an electrical inductor within an 'AC circuit' for a 'grey body', or with a resistor transposed with the inductor for a 'black body').
Put succinctly, a radiative model doesn't account for a climate because climate can only be modelled by the actions of the mass within the atmosphere, as and when, they are prescribed/proscribed by radiative influences from outside of the atmosphere.
As for privileges, the most recent papers to gain acceptance are nearly always hidden behind a 'money wall' and can't be posted in a forum (well they can, but fellow forum readers will have to pay to see them).
Best regards, suricat (simples, ha, I like that).
