The amount of energy coming to the Earth balances that being radiated back. The 333 watts per square meter you keep mentioning is due to backradiation, which you've just said is impossible.
Now, you're saying that there is actually 4 times as much energy coming from the sun, and the model is showing only 25% of it?
Sorry, but you're making no sense at all to me.
First, the fact that that budget balances is meaningless. You keep saying balanced balanced balanced as if that meant something. It only balances because of that 333 watts that is claimed as backradiation. Take away the backradiation and you no longer have a balanced energy budget. That is exactly what I have been trying to tell you. The greenouse effect as described by climate science is nothing more than a construct that they made up fron whole cloth as a means to explain the temperature of the earth that their model predicts.
And yes, there is 4 times as much energy coming in from the sun as that graphic shows. I already explained this to you. kihel and trenberth modeled the earth as if it were a blackbody. It isn't. That is the first major error to be found in their methodology. I told you that they expressed the energy coming into the earth from the sun in terms of P/4. That means P divided by 4. P is incoming solar radiation. There isn't a real simple way to explain this so you are just going to have to put your thinking cap on and try or remain in the dark.
If you were modeling a blackbody, an actual blackbody like a star, for instance, it would be perfectly acceptable to express its radiation in terms of P/4 because no matter which direction you look at a black body, it is radiating the same amount. If you mathematically made a flat plane of a star (which is what expressing P in terms of P/4 does) it would be OK. You would have made the star into a flat plane like a piece of paper but because it is radiating the same amount across its entire surface at all times, it wouldn't matter. You would have what looks like a flat piece of paper with the surface of a star radiating equally across its surface. Does that make sense? So, if you have a self illuminated body (like a star) which is radiating the same amount of energy across the full
of its surface at all times it is fine to make a flat plane out of it because in terms of radiation, you are still expressing reality. The same amount of radiation from any point at any time being reality.
The problem is that earth is not a black body. The earth isn't a self illuminating sphere in which the radiation values are the same across the whole
of its surface at all times. The earth is a illuminated sphere which is being illumated across
degrees of its surface at any time and even then, the radiation incoming isn't the same across that
. The intensity of the incoming radiation is very low at surise and intesifies until its maximum is reached a little after midday and then its intensity begins to decrease till around sunset. You must also account for the fact that at any given longitudinal plane (line from the north pole to the south pole) on that
that is being illuminated, the most intense illumination will be near the equator and the amount of incoming radiation will decrease as you move north or south from that point of greatest intensity. In order to show the earth as it exists, a model must be created according to those parameters. There are models like this and they don't require a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature of the earth.
And why kihel and trenberth modeled the earth as they did for the purposes of their energy budget makes no sense to me either. Why model the earth so far away from reality unless you have a preconcieved objective in mind. Surely those two, who unlike the vast majority of the climate science community actually have a background in the hard sciences, must have known exactly what they were doing. Considering their backgrounds, the only rational explanation for the energy budget they produced is that they concocted an energy budget which requires a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature of the earth and had a particular so called greenhouse gas in mind when they did it. For the expertise required to come up with such a model, for the sheer daring of putting it out knowing that there would be some pretty high powered people who may blast it right off the bat, and for the fact that they have gotten away with it for so long, I tip my hat to them. They are consumate scam artists.
So yes, because they expressed P in the form of P/4 you can multiply all the numbers on the graphic by 4. Maybe I should have mentioned it but you seemed to be having a hard enough time with the barebones basics and I didn't want to overcomplicate it for you. Maybe you can begin to see why the bulk of climate scientists who aren't educated in the hard sciences might simply accept kiehl and trenberth's energy budget at face value rather than try and create an energy budget themselves and in doing so, directly challenge the big dogs and risk their future employment opportunities. Take a look at a climate science cirriculum at any university that has the program. They have to take algebra and maybe one semester of calculus. Certainly no 2000, 3000, or 4000 level calculus and no differential equations. Likewise, general chemistry and general physics because they aren't required to take the prerequsite math required to handle the more advanced chemistry and pysics courses. They simply aren't prepared by the educational system to see into the problems associated with the energy budget that they take at face value and build thier own work upon which consists almost entirely of computer modelling.
The problem lies in the fact that computers only know what you tell them about the laws of physics and if you don't tell them that representing the earth as a flat plane being illuminated 24 hours a day by radiation at 25% of actual and that you can't allow backradiation because it violates the laws of physics, the computer will run merrily along as they have been since the late 70's putting out junk which simply doesn't match the observations in the real world and rather than look at potential problems in the computer models, they alter the temperature record in order to achieve a compuer output that more closely matches the observations and they have to do these updates every couple of years.
Physicists, astrophysicists, advanced computer modellers etc., see these issues with the energy budget and have developed alternative budgets which adhere to the laws of physics and don't require a greenhouse effect, but like the man said, tell a big enough like long enough and it becomes the truth. The present and newer generations of climate scientists simply don't have the education required to grasp what astrophysics, physics, mathematicians, and advanced computer modellers are trying to get them to see so they accept what they know on faith not really seeing that they are as unable to look into the process that kiehl and trenberth used as they are to look into the alternatives out there.
For the purposes of this discussion, however, we can continue to look at the values represented by kiehl and trenberth rather than multiply every number on the budget by 4. So long as you understand that by expressing incoming solar radiation in terms of P/4 they are representing the earth as a flat plane with the entire surface of the earth on one side of the plane (the back side is blank I suppose or perhaps populated by the monsters of old) and the plane doesn't rotate, and there is no day and night, and there is only 25% as much sunlight coming into this flat world as the real world receives. If you can accept that, then I see no problem with proceeding with the discussion using the numbers on the graphic. Of course if you if you can accept a model with those parameters as a rational representation of reality, and don't have anything at stake like your future employablity, other questions make themselves unavoidable.
. The intensity of the incoming radiation is very low at surise and intesifies until its maximum is reached a little after midday and then its intensity begins to decrease till around sunset. You must also account for the fact that at any given longitudinal plane (line from the north pole to the south pole) on that
