ir. Ronald Wijnsema
75 posts
@rwijnsema
Natuurkundige met boeren verstand.
Ik laat me niet wegjagen. Ik wil dat Nederland weer Nederland wordt. Zonder bezopen regels en enge afluisterpraktijken. Als je van Nederland China wil maken ga je daar zelf toch lekker wonen. x.com/Nieuwsvandedag…
"illuminatibot @iluminatibot Vaccins doen meer kwaad dan goed, en iedereen die overweegt zichzelf of iemand anders te laten vaccineren, moet dit alsjeblieft bekijken en beluisteren: de statistieken en het bewijsmateriaal zijn nu gewoonweg onweerlegbaar."
It’s the Clouds, Not CO₂ And an overlooked new paper quietly proves it A new observational study just delivered an inconvenient result for the climate-model narrative... and almost no one is talking about it. The paper, published in Atmospheric Measurement Techniques (2025), analyzed more than 30 years of real-world measurements of downward longwave radiation at the ocean surface using data from 65 globally distributed buoys. This isn’t a model exercise. It isn’t a reanalysis. It’s the climate system as it actually behaves. And what did they find? The dominant control on surface longwave radiation, the energy that actually warms the surface, is cloud properties, not CO₂. Let’s slow that down, because this matters. Downward longwave radiation is the key mechanism by which the atmosphere transfers heat to the surface. If CO₂ were truly the primary driver of surface warming, you would expect changes in CO₂ to show up clearly. They don’t. Instead, the study shows that the best-performing models of surface longwave radiation rely almost entirely on: -near-surface air temperature -humidity -cloud fraction -cloud liquid water -cloud ice water In fact, the authors demonstrate that explicitly accounting for cloud thermodynamics dramatically improves agreement with observations, while formulations that rely on simplified or indirect representations perform significantly worse. CO₂ doesn’t even appear explicitly in the best formulations... not because it violates physics, but because at the surface, clouds dominate the signal. This alone should raise eyebrows. Even more telling, the paper shows that major reanalysis products, the very datasets used to calibrate and validate climate models, perform worse than simple, observation-anchored empirical models. That means models are being tuned against datasets that already struggle to correctly partition energy between clouds and greenhouse gases. In other words, if models appear to get the “right answer,” it may be because forcing from CO₂ is being adjusted upward to compensate for unresolved cloud processes. That’s not a conspiracy. That’s how parameterization works when key physics can’t be resolved. This study does not claim that CO₂ has no radiative effect. It doesn’t need to. What it shows, quietly but clearly, is that surface energy balance is governed primarily by clouds, which are: -highly variable -poorly constrained -non-linear -and deeply entangled with natural variability That’s a problem for any narrative claiming we can precisely control global temperature by fine-tuning atmospheric CO₂. It also helps explain a long-standing observation: why surface warming trends, especially over oceans, often fail to track model expectations. The models aren’t wrong because physics is wrong... they’re wrong because clouds are doing the heavy lifting, and we still don’t understand them well enough to parameterize them without tuning. This paper doesn’t shout. It doesn’t challenge policy. It doesn’t wave ideological flags. It just measures reality. And reality keeps pointing to the same conclusion: CO₂ may matter, but clouds run the system where it counts, at the surface. If you want the deeper breakdown... including what this means for climate sensitivity, model tuning, and why “solutions” focused solely on CO₂ are likely to fail, that’s exactly what I cover at Irrational Fear. Because the more data we collect, the clearer it becomes: The climate story isn’t simpler than we were told. It’s far more complex... and far less controllable. amt.copernicus.org/articles/18/28…
🔴 ALERTE INFO Sébastien Lecornu annonce qu'il suspend la réforme des retraites en l'état pour l'âge et la durée de cotisation l.bfmtv.com/x9uS
Keulemans slaat de plank weer eens flink mis, zoals vaker bij cijfers. Ik noem asielmigranten incl. meegekomen gezinsmigranten, volgens CBS ~41.000 personen👇(links) Keulemans *weerlegt* dat met ~16.000 vergunningen terwijl het er bijna 2 × zoveel zijn👇(rechts) Dat hij niet zo goed met cijfers is, wisten we al, maar hier gebruikt historicus Keulemans de verkeerde bron en dan ook nog eens verkeerd. Ik heb een dagtaak aan het weerleggen van MSM-desinformatie. Steun mijn werk: dr-janvandebeek.backme.org
