Scientific American’s Iceland Virtue Signalling
Scientific American takes a quick break from peddling climate doom to invite the special people to “Join Us! 2026 Solar Eclipse in Iceland/ Fire, Ice and Totality with Andrea Thompson”
Not for the first time, we wondered how you got to Iceland if not by aeroplane.
So we clicked “Learn More” and sure enough it all starts “Upon arrival at Keflavik International Airport” and not by longboat, whereupon you “transfer to vibrant Reykjavik”.
(Vibrant being a word employed to praise foreign cultures when nothing specific comes to mind.)
But then you spew ‘carbon’ to see “sustainable modern design” before experiencing other climate-virtuous attractions.
For instance:
“Discover geothermal innovation at Hellisheiði Power Plant, home to the groundbreaking CarbFix project turning carbon into stone, and learn how Iceland harnesses the Earth’s heat and runs almost entirely on renewable energy.
Experience the benefits of Iceland’s rich geothermic possibilities with bread baked beneath the earth and a relaxing soak in geothermal hot springs at the Sky Lagoon.”
And also:
“Experience a total solar eclipse during a private viewing event at a lava-field basecamp – perfectly situated in the zone of totality – complete with expert commentary, music, and a celebratory dinner reception.”
Do not however ask awkward questions about the energy resources employed to get all that stuff to your exclusive chichi “lava-field basecamp” far from the hoi polloi and their vulgar eclipse-viewing.
You are special.
Also do not ask what “almost entirely” means because nearly 1/6 of primary energy in Iceland comes from ‘fossil fuels’.
It is special too.
See more here climatediscussionnexus
Header image: World Nomads
Bold emphasis added
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
I M Wright
| #
Most climatologists have been misled by Raymond Pierrehumbert’s promotion of the concept known as “radiative forcing”—a notion that has been rigorously challenged by leading scientists such as Professor Claes Johnson. It is a fundamental error to claim that radiation from colder regions of the troposphere can raise the temperature of a warmer surface. This violates basic thermodynamic principles. The surface is warmer not because of back-radiation, but primarily due to the gravitationally induced temperature gradient—a well-established physical reality recognized by physicists since the 1870s. Moreover, such downward radiation does not slow the rate of radiative cooling at the surface, and it certainly has no effect on dominant non-radiative cooling mechanisms like convection and evaporation.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi U R Wrong,
The surface of the Earth appears warmer because there are more molecule radiating heat than in the atmosphere. If you put more logs in a fire it will get hotter even though all the logs burn at the same temperature. The thermometer is not measuring the kinetic energy of molecules but how much energy is being transferred to it. If you take the temperature of the ocean you submerge then bulb of the thermometer in the water. It absorbs energy from colliding water molecules and this cause the liquid inside the thermometer to expand or contract. The liquid in the body of the thermometer transfers energy to or from the atmosphere so you are measuring a flow of energy from one medium to another. All the liquid in a thermometer is exposed only to the atmosphere. It is absorbing energy from collisions with air molecules so you are measuring how much energy is being absorbed which is different than what you are measuring at the surface.
As altitude increases the number of molecules decreases resulting in fewer molecules transferring energy. In order to get an accurate indication of the energy of a constant number of molecules in the atmosphere you must divide the temperature on the thermometer by the density of the atmosphere. This shows the energy of air molecules increases with altitude (why density decreases) and the air is being heated by the sun (N2 and O2 absorbing UV and converting it to IR) not the Earth’s surface.
Gravity does not heat gas molecules. The atmosphere is created by the kinetic energy of the molecules (0 K= no atmosphere). The greater the kinetic energy of the molecules the greater the volume of the atmosphere (Universal Gas Law). The reason the bottom of the Grand Canyon is always 10 F hotter than the top is because there are more molecules transferring energy, not because the molecules have more ke (if they did they would rise to the top).
The hottest part of the atmosphere is not at the surface but at the top in the thermosphere where the energy of the sun is greatest and the number of molecules fewest.
Herb
Reply