Palerider had me going for a while.
On the one hand, the solar constant is, actually, 1,367 watts/square meter. Indisputable.
On the other hand, it is somewhat difficult to believe that someone posting on an internet forum under a pseudonym (I know, I'm doing the same thing. I'm just not trying to dispute NASA) actually found a basic error that escaped said organization, along with the other scientific organizations.
If it weren't so sad PLC, it would be funny. I don't quite understand why you are unable to understand that by pointing out the parameters of the kiehl - trenberth model of the earth's energy budget, I am not disputing NASA, kiehl - trenberth, the ipcc, or anyone else. I am merely relating to you the parameters of the model upon which AGW alarmism, and your position is based. You may not like it, or be able to wrap your mind around the fact that it represents a flat earth with no night time, but that is what it represents.
So, I did a little research, and looked up the term "solar constant." This is what I found:
The
solar constant, a measure of
flux density, is the amount of incoming
solar electromagnetic radiation per unit area
that would be incident on a plane perpendicular to the rays, at a distance of one
astronomical unit (AU) (roughly the mean distance from the Sun to the Earth). When solar
irradiance is measured on the outer surface of
Earth's atmosphere,
[1] the measurements can be adjusted using the
inverse square law to infer the magnitude of solar irradiance at one AU and deduce the solar constant.[
that would be incident on a plane, i.e., a flat surface.
Congratulations, you are starting to get it. Of course, it is clear that a "little" research is all you did when a great deal of research is in order. The solar constant represents a flat disk. or more accurately the amount of incoming solar radiation that would strike a flat disk. And that is where the fraud begins. Note that I am not saying that it is an error in the model. The design of the model has a purpose and there are no errors in it on the part of kiehl or trenberth, and no overlooking of any error by any scientific organization that accepts it. An overlooked error would be great. It would be wonderful to say that a huge error has gone overlooked and a mistake of epic proportions has been made but alas, that is not the case. You are the victim of a deliberate fraud.
Exactly, a flat earth. That goes back to the P/4 issue I have already covered with you. The solar constant is 1370 watts per square meter.
You can express the solar constant as follows:
You would properly express that energy reaching the earth as follows:
where the incoming radiation is divided by 2 thus exposing half of the surface of the earth to the incoming solar radiation while the dark side of the earth is in the process of constantly cooling till shortly after sunrise.
That isn't, however, how kiehl - trenberth expressed the solar radiation reaching the earth. They expressed the incoming solar radiation as follows:
You need to understand that the /4 is nothing more than what you do with the solar constant once it reaches earth. If you expressed it as /2 then you would have a sphere which is dark on one side and light on the other. kiehl - trenberth, however didn't do that. They expressed the incoming solar constant as /4 which makes a flat disk of the earth which has no night and evenly distributes all of the incoming solar radiation over the entire surface of the earth at once and in effect, denies night when in reality, the day time half of the earth is absorbing twice as much as the entire earth is radiating at any given time.
The expression on the right side of the = sign on the kiehl - trenberth equation above is an attempt to make the incoming radiation balance with the outgoing radiation in effect, making the balance zero, or as close to it as possible ( and corrupting the Stefan-Boltzman law in the process but we won't get into that right now). In doing so, they have denied a day/night cycle and made daytime exist 24 hours a day. The incoming energy is NOT equal in flux density, and therefore temperature to the outgoing radiation
So, it appears that it is not NASA who thinks the Earth is flat, is it?
I never said that NASA thinks the earth is flat. I said that they have accepted an energy budget which depicts the earth as a flat disk which doesn't rotate and therefore is in daylight all the time but at only 1/4 of the actual intensity. In fact, anyone who is promoting AGW alarmism and a greenhouse effect as described by that energy budget has accepted a flat earth with no night and incoming solar radiation at 1/4 the actual rate.
The formula above is from keihl - trenberth and it means what it means. If you believe that it means something else, by all means, lets hear your description of how and what you believe it means.
