David Coates

@4RealClimate @marco_borrano @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene We're not talking about the Earth. It's not clear to me from your response: For the given hypothetical (weakly interacting atmosphere), would Ts ~= Te? I would then be interested in what you mean by "ASR sets Ts", could you please elaborate? I can't even parse your last line.

@djcoates_ @marco_borrano @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Radiative‑convective is not Earth's atmosphere, Ts ≈ Te is not the final result. Flip that to a convective-radiative atmopshere: Convection + gravity set the lapse rate. ASR sets Ts. Radiation balances the resulting temperature profile but Te is emissions not setting Ts.

@blizzard219 @djcoates_ @CaptainAdvance1 Il vostro sacerdote Ryan mi ha bloccato. Buona continuazione con i vostri salmi della Chiesa Climatica.

@marco_borrano @ah_ecco @climacritic You can leave out the "so".

@djcoates_ @ah_ecco @climacritic I don't think so.

Quando guardi bene i dati delle temperature, ti accorgi che non sono le temperature alte a crescere, ma sono quelle basse, di notte e d'inverno. In altre parole il clima non sta diventando più caldo, ma più mite. Questo è tutt'altro che drammatico.

@marco_borrano @ah_ecco @climacritic Your chart is very deceptive. Do you notice the 1000x difference in scale, and likely different data sources? We have high resolution instrumentation for recent history. Surprise, surprise...

@djcoates_ @ah_ecco @climacritic Now we're missing the correlation with T. Do you see it? Because it's not there.

@marco_borrano @ah_ecco @climacritic If you want to look at ice cores, perhaps you should zoom out. See the correlation now, Marco?

@djcoates_ @ah_ecco @climacritic In fact, there isn't even that.

@marco_borrano @ah_ecco @climacritic No one said it was. But you said there is not even evidence of correlation. Will you retract?

@djcoates_ @ah_ecco @climacritic Correlation Is not causation.

@4RealClimate @marco_borrano @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Not quite, but you're right that it's not realistic - it's a limit case. What happens if we relax the hypothetical to allow the atmosphere to have a very weak IR interaction? You would get some convection, with a lapse rate. You would still have Ts = Te (or very close to it).

@djcoates_ @marco_borrano @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Your hypothetical is Fourier’s sealed greenhouse example, immobile, uniform, and transparent. Fourier’s conclusion was that the real atmosphere is mobile and cannot behave that way. As anyone who studies atmospheric physics should know.

@marco_borrano @ah_ecco @climacritic Meanwhile? No. There is no discussion until you can acknowledge reality. x.com/i/status/20432…

@djcoates_ @ah_ecco @climacritic Meanwhile, let's get back to the point we are discussing and explain to me how CO2 has managed to reduce clouds by increasing ASR by 1.5W/m² from 2000 to today with a T increase of 0.65°.

@marco_borrano @ah_ecco @SchneidGabriel @climacritic I provided clear evidence for a correlation. On what basis do you reject it? You must have a good reason.

@djcoates_ @ah_ecco @SchneidGabriel @climacritic No. Sorry.

@marco_borrano @joseph_postma @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene That is not what reductio ad Hitlerum means. You legitimately don't understand anything, do you? I'm amazed you manage to cross the street.

@djcoates_ @joseph_postma @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Since you've completely lost the debate, you're forced to resort to the reductio ad Hitlerum of your intellectually superior interlocutor. I understand. And tell me... was Wernher von Braun's physics that bad?

@4RealClimate @marco_borrano @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Yes, Ts ≠ Te for the Earth. We were discussing a hypothetical: A planet with uniform Ts and a transparent (to solar and IR) atmosphere. Regardless of the insolation distribution (provided the other assumptions still hold), Ts = Te.

@djcoates_ @marco_borrano @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Your real issue is interpretation: A radiative only slab. Earth is a radiative–convective, externally heated system, Ts ≠ Te, unless ASR changes. Where insolation reaches the surface determines the potential density of solar energy available for absorption not an abstract S/4.

@marco_borrano @ah_ecco @SchneidGabriel @climacritic Yes Marco: CO2, ASR and T are all correlated. This is news only to you.

@djcoates_ @ah_ecco @SchneidGabriel @climacritic R² 0,89 > R² 0.8717 Little Dave is a Sun denier.

@KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @marco_borrano @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Yes, you did provide detailed excepts. The problem is that you drew a false conclusion from them: a conclusion which is directly and plainly contradicted by the paper. x.com/djcoates_/stat…

@djcoates_ @blizzard219 @marco_borrano @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene I did provide you ample evidence, with link to the paper (one of the many possible), and DETAILED excerpts, visual and in words, HIGHLIGHTED in red… but your typical self-inflicted blindness to reality prevents you to realise that. In so sorry for you.

@KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @marco_borrano @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene There is a reason you so quickly resort to insults. You have provided not a single argument of substance. Not a single equation. Not a single citation, except the one paper you so profoundly misinterpreted. x.com/djcoates_/stat…

@djcoates_ @blizzard219 @marco_borrano @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene On the other hand, this profound ignorance of your is understandable: you follow “scientists” like Katz-Rosane, see your X page, and this explains it all. Mathematically… 🤡+🤡=🤡🤡

@marco_borrano @joseph_postma @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene No, but Joseph is. x.com/joseph_postma/…

@djcoates_ @joseph_postma @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Why are you changing the subject? Are you having trouble? Math isn't Nazi.

@KersevanRoberto @joseph_postma @marco_borrano @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene It is quite literally an application of the first law.

@djcoates_ @joseph_postma @marco_borrano @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene “Energy balance is thermodynamics.” LOOOOLLLLL!!! Is this your level of understanding of physics????😵‍💫

@John_On_Climate @noidea72363287 @BobBurn97207272 He's living up to his name.

@noidea72363287 @BobBurn97207272 800,000 years is a selective graph? What are you fucking stupid.

The biggest madness about Net Zero is that Australia's emissions are already at... net zero. Our forests and oceans already absorb many times what is produced by humans.

@JimmyTimmy19685 @John_On_Climate @BobBurn97207272 You're*

@John_On_Climate @BobBurn97207272 Your the dumb cunt, your delusional

@marco_borrano @joseph_postma @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene The Nazi put words in my mouth, and in all of his ramblings presented nothing of substance to respond to. There is no value in engaging with such trolls.

@djcoates_ @joseph_postma @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Has your physics expertise already run out?

@joseph_postma @marco_borrano @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene Lmfao. Not just a schizo, but a Nazi schizo. x.com/i/status/20354…

Given the sequence of conversation here you imply that it is your original position, given your agreement to my comment and that I am conceding to yours, that global mean energy balance cannot be used for thermodynamics and radiative heat trsnsfer; this a direct agreement that the radiative greenhouse effect has no foundation, given that it originates in global mean energy budgeting, which you pre-agree cannot be used for radiative heat transfer thermodynamics. In reality the concession is entirely yours. You've just conceded that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

@joseph_postma @marco_borrano @KersevanRoberto @blizzard219 @Ernestops78 @CaptainAdvance1 @ryankatzrosene I conceded no such thing. Energy balance is thermodynamics. How can it be used for one but not the other?

No concession was necessary from me nor contextual regarding energy balance. Thank you for conceding however that such a procedure cannot be used for thermodynamics or radiative heat transfer, and thus that there is no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. amazon.com/Introduction-C…