onsdag 30 april 2014  Good and bad arguments  In connection to a
recent post by Roy Spencer: Skeptical arguments that don't hold
water, I thought I might take the opportunity to clarify and
summarize certain key points that I have argued for on this
blog. Roy Spencer is an incredibly valuable source for
understanding the reasoning and conceptual twists needed to
support the castle of sand upon which modern atmospheric physics
is founded. He is also very kind to deliver the standard
climatology explanation for the atmospheric lapse rate:
“Without the destabilization provided by the greenhouse effect,
convective overturning would slow and quite possible cease
altogether. The atmosphere would eventually become isothermal,
as the full depth of the atmosphere would achieve the same
temperature as the surface through thermal conduction; without
IR emission, the middle and upper troposphere would have no way
to cool itself in the face of this heating.”   The same thing
can not be said about some other people in Spe