Think of the pane of glass as a 10km thick slab of gas. It absorbs wavelengths in varying amounts, emits at various rates according to the local temperature and emissivity. You're right, probably best to abandon simplicity.
-
-
-
-
Replying to @1_TMF_ @BradSchrag and
Sorry Tim. We've been doing a world wide experiment adding c02 to the atmosphere. Physics predicts an increase in warming ( we knew this in 1896) the data shows warming. Your job, is to come up with a better explanation. Nobel, when you do.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @stevenmosher @1_TMF_ and
Coincidence isn’t evidence.pic.twitter.com/eDs2OTGF3O
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @DubiBoat @stevenmosher and
Question LabRat: How do you prove causation?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Stephen90045069 @stevenmosher and
Controlled experiments. Problem is we don’t have an identical earth to run as a control.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DubiBoat @Stephen90045069 and
To remove bias, medical studies often run as “double blind”. Imagine if the modelers and paleo climatologists ran their models this way. What results would we have?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DubiBoat @stevenmosher and
Do you know why medical studies run as tests as either single or double blind?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Stephen90045069 @stevenmosher and
Because the researchers are invested in the outcome. Normally in science the observer doesn’t care one way or the other. But the priests of climate religion are indeed invested in the outcome.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
The observer ALWAYS cares. Climate science is no different.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.