Hell freezes over: Koch's scientists confirm that climate change is REAL!

[palerider]

IYO, and yet, you say you're not " disputing NASA, kiehl - trenberth, the ipcc, or anyone else."

So, you must be supporting the "alarmist" position, too, or at least not disputing it.

What, exactly do you suppose it is inside of you that causes you to feel the necessity to deliberately lie about what I am saying? Of course I am saying that the energy budget is wrong, but I am not disputing the fact that kiehl-trenberth, nasa, ipcc, etc are using it or that they are perfectly aware of the problems with it.

Or, a third alternative, is that your opinion doesn't hold water.

I gave you the equation that kiehl - trenberth used. You tell me what you believe it means and describe how you arrive at that conclusion. I have been very specific in my arguments about the energy budget and if you expect to get anywhere in this discussion, you are going to have to get specific about where you belive I am mistaken.

Which is what you said about the diagram you seem to be having such a problem with, yet the numbers are quite different.

Is that really your level of mathematical understanding? The number kiehl - trenberth use as the solar constant is 1/4 of the actual solar constant. Why do you believe they expressed the incoming radiation in terms of P/4? What do you believe the purpose of doing that was and kindly show me the equation upon which you base that belief.

I've already addressed that one. Why rehash the obvious? The number in the solar constant is bigger than the one on the graph.

The number used in the energy budget is 1/4 of the solar constant? What exactly about that is so hard for you to grasp considering the fact that I have explained to you that in order to represent the earth as a flat plane, with no night, being irradiated by incoming solar radiation at 25% of the actual amount you must divide the incoming solar radiation by 4? Which part of that is it that you fail to understand?

If we're supposing a flat plane that doesn't experience night, then the energy hitting it would be greater. As you said, it isn't rocket science.

Not if you divide the incoming energy by 4. Which part of expressing incoming energy as P/4 is so difficult for you to grasp. If you want to represent a world that experiences both night and day, you must express incoming solar energy in terms of P/2. P/4 is used to express a blackbody in which the radiation is the same across the entire surface. As I have explained to you already, it is fine to represent a blackbody as a flat plane because it looks the same from whichever directon you observe it from.

You claim that the math isn't over your head and yet, you are completely unable to grasp this very basic concept.

When it's backed up by non government funded science, sure.

Backed by what? More scientists who depend on grant money to buy their daily bread? Backed by a sophmorish energy budget that clearly violates the laws of physics?

I can believe someone who is posting on an internet forum, or the findings of every scientific organization on Earth. You have a huge burden of proof, and what you've come up with thus far is simply not supportable.

And that is what it comes down to. You are in a position where you must believe someone because you are unable to grasp the physics and do the math yourself. As I stated early on, your position is based on your political leanings. You decide who to believe based on your political views, not any inherent knowledge of the subject matter.

Here are a couple of warming flags that should send up warning flags to any critical thinker:

1. You should be wary of any findings funded by money provided by people who have a vested interest in the findings.

2. You should be wary when very large amounts of money hang in the balance based on the results.

Both of those are true in spades where climate science is involved.

You claim that what I have stated is unsupportable and yet, have shown no problem at all with a single equation I have presented or any explanation I have given for those equations. Simply stating that they aren't supportable when the equations themselves are the support is just silly PLC.

Of course, I knew I couldn't change your mind. Debating this issue is a lot like debating the 9/11 truthers, or any other conspiracy theorist: Logic and fact have no effect.

Change my mind with what? I presented the evidence. Thus far, you have shown no problem with any equation or explanation I have provided. What you have shown is that you don't get the math and you have no working knowledge of the laws of physics. Exactly how do you suppose that would change my mind. Unlike you, I do grasp the math and have a firm grip on the laws of physics.

 

[PLC1]

Let me ask you, Palerider, how much energy do you believe is actually coming to the real, revolving, more or less spherical, Earth from the sun?

If the figure given in the diagram is wrong, what is the correct figure?

Is it the solar constant?

Just what?

Remember, I can only go by the words you have posted.

and the answer is a number, not a chapter, please.

 

[palerider]

Let me ask you, Palerider, how much energy do you believe is actually coming to the real, revolving, more or less spherical, Earth from the sun?

If the figure given in the diagram is wrong, what is the correct figure?

Is it the solar constant?

Just what?

There isn't a single number. It seems that you want to rein everything, no matter how complicated, down into a few easy choices? Is that a function of shallow thinking, or lazyness, or what? The solar constant is about 1370 watts per square meter but because the earth is not a flat disk, you can't simply state a single amount of incoming solar radiation across 180 degrees of a curved surface. As I have already pointed out, that is the primary problem with the kiehl - trenberth model that nasa, the ipcc, and practically everyone else has accepted in the name of research $$$.

As you have noted, the solar constant represents a flat disk with no curvature. If you lay that down on a curved surface, only a portion of that curve will actually be receiving 1370 watts per square meter , the amount of energy the rest of the surface receives will vary depending on distance from the center. If you look at the curve and assume that the full 1370 watts per square meter will be received by a cross section which is no more than 10 degrees from perpendicular to the disk of the solar constant, you will have an area that is about half of the diameter receiving 1370 watts per square meter . The remainder of the illuminated 180 degrees of the surface is going to roughly decrease from 1370 watts per square meter in a smooth cosine function.

I am not going to do the math for you as it would be a waste of my time anyway. If you want to, and are able to do it your self, the circumfrence of the earth is about 24,902 miles and the radius is about 3,963 miles and the earth curves around 8 inches per mile. If, as you claim, you can do the math, you should be able to go from there if you feel like you have to have the numbers for every mile along the curvature of the earth.

Obviously, there is no solar input on the dark side of the earth. Nothing is going on there except cooling. A couple of important thermodynamic processes are going on there, however, which kiehl - trenberth don't even consider since their earth is a flat disk that has no night. On the dark side of the earth the rate of cooling is going to initially be directly proportional to the temperature reached during the day and as the night wears on and the surface cools, the rate of temperature decrease will also decrease. Because of this thermodynamic phenomenon, the surface of the earth does not lose all of the heat it absorbed during the previous day. Perhaps kiehl - trenberth should look there for their missing heat, or maybe out in space.

Stick a thermometer in the ground in your yard and measure it over the course of 24 hours. You will find that the sun heats the surface of the earth faster than it is able to dissipate the heat. That should inform you of yet another gross error in the keihl - trenberth model. Since the thermal capacity of the earth is such that it is being heated by the sun at a rate faster than it can cool, the average ground temperature espoused by kiehl - trenberth of -18C is fantasy.

Remember, I can only go by the words you have posted.

You have made it abundantly clear that you can't do that either. You are apparently unable to digest strings of words that don't mesh with your world view and feel the need to reinterpret them in any way necessary to make them mesh.

and the answer is a number, not a chapter, please.

As you can see, the answer isn't as simple as a single number. The earth, being an illuminated 3D sphere which is being irradiated at different amounts across 180 degrees of its surface and receiving no incoming radiation across the other 180 degrees is far more complicated than the simple model depicting a flat earth with no night time than you have accepted. You want simple answers and there are no simple answers and a simple model such as kiehl - trenberth doesn't even begin to represent the complexity of the earth so the answers it gives, while simple, do not even approach reality. The fact is that it is no more than coincidence that the model predicts the temperature of the earth. If you apply the physics of the kiehl - trenberth model to the other planets in the solar system, it doesn't even come close to predicting the temepratures. It is nothing more than an ad hoc construct with demonizing CO2 as its reason for being.

Here is a relatively new (actually quite old) take on the earth energy budget. These guys, using little more than the ideal gas laws (as astrophysicists have been doing for a very long time) have devised an equation that can predict, almost dead on, the temperatures of every planet in the solar system with only two variables; the total solar irradiance and the mean atmospheric surface pressure. Their model completely disregards the mythical greenhouse effect as described by warmists and predicts dead on the temperatures of every planet in the solar system while the model presently being used by climate science can't predict a single planet other than earth and achives its agreement with earth's temperature by violating several laws of physics, making a flat disk of the earth, and denying the fact that night time exists.

Really, PLC, which one would any rational person believe?

This work came from two PhDs working out of the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station in CO. It is my understanding that the work is in peer review in the form of a complete paper at this time.

http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C7/C7_Nikolov_M15A.pdf

 

[PLC1]

OMG! You've written yet another chapter! Well, let's see if there is anything new here this time:

There isn't a single number. It seems that you want to rein everything, no matter how complicated, down into a few easy choices? Is that a function of shallow thinking, or lazyness, or what? The solar constant is about 1370 watts per square meter but because the earth is not a flat disk, you can't simply state a single amount of incoming solar radiation across 180 degrees of a curved surface. As I have already pointed out, that is the primary problem with the kiehl - trenberth model that nasa, the ipcc, and practically everyone else has accepted in the name of research $$$.

If there isn't any single number, why are you so sure that the model is so badly flawed? Your entire argument centers around the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth as shown in a model made to help laymen like me understand what global warming is all about. You've said that the number is based on a flat Earth. Yet, there is no single number?

As you have noted, the solar constant represents a flat disk with no curvature.

Exactly. And the figure you're having so much trouble with doesn't. Therefore, your assertion about NASA and the flat Earth is just hooey.

If you lay that down on a curved surface, only a portion of that curve will actually be receiving 1370 watts per square meter , the amount of energy the rest of the surface receives will vary depending on distance from the center. If you look at the curve and assume that the full 1370 watts per square meter will be received by a cross section which is no more than 10 degrees from perpendicular to the disk of the solar constant, you will have an area that is about half of the diameter receiving 1370 watts per square meter . The remainder of the illuminated 180 degrees of the surface is going to roughly decrease from 1370 watts per square meter in a smooth cosine function.

I am not going to do the math for you as it would be a waste of my time anyway. If you want to, and are able to do it your self, the circumfrence of the earth is about 24,902 miles and the radius is about 3,963 miles and the earth curves around 8 inches per mile. If, as you claim, you can do the math, you should be able to go from there if you feel like you have to have the numbers for every mile along the curvature of the earth.

Obviously, there is no solar input on the dark side of the earth. Nothing is going on there except cooling. A couple of important thermodynamic processes are going on there, however, which kiehl - trenberth don't even consider since their earth is a flat disk that has no night. On the dark side of the earth the rate of cooling is going to initially be directly proportional to the temperature reached during the day and as the night wears on and the surface cools, the rate of temperature decrease will also decrease. Because of this thermodynamic phenomenon, the surface of the earth does not lose all of the heat it absorbed during the previous day. Perhaps kiehl - trenberth should look there for their missing heat, or maybe out in space.

Stick a thermometer in the ground in your yard and measure it over the course of 24 hours. You will find that the sun heats the surface of the earth faster than it is able to dissipate the heat. That should inform you of yet another gross error in the keihl - trenberth model. Since the thermal capacity of the earth is such that it is being heated by the sun at a rate faster than it can cool, the average ground temperature espoused by kiehl - trenberth of -18C is fantasy.

Nothing new there. Same old, same old, the Earth is a sphere, so that means calcullating the amount of energy reaching it is very complex, and way over my head.

You have made it abundantly clear that you can't do that either. You are apparently unable to digest strings of words that don't mesh with your world view and feel the need to reinterpret them in any way necessary to make them mesh.




As you can see, the answer isn't as simple as a single number. The earth, being an illuminated 3D sphere which is being irradiated at different amounts across 180 degrees of its surface and receiving no incoming radiation across the other 180 degrees is far more complicated than the simple model depicting a flat earth with no night time than you have accepted. You want simple answers and there are no simple answers and a simple model such as kiehl - trenberth doesn't even begin to represent the complexity of the earth so the answers it gives, while simple, do not even approach reality. The fact is that it is no more than coincidence that the model predicts the temperature of the earth. If you apply the physics of the kiehl - trenberth model to the other planets in the solar system, it doesn't even come close to predicting the temepratures. It is nothing more than an ad hoc construct with demonizing CO2 as its reason for being.

Nothing new there, either. If there is no single number, what makes you so sure that the one used in the model is so far off as to show that the scientists who devised it are trying to put one over on us?

Here is a relatively new (actually quite old) take on the earth energy budget. These guys, using little more than the ideal gas laws (as astrophysicists have been doing for a very long time) have devised an equation that can predict, almost dead on, the temperatures of every planet in the solar system with only two variables; the total solar irradiance and the mean atmospheric surface pressure. Their model completely disregards the mythical greenhouse effect as described by warmists and predicts dead on the temperatures of every planet in the solar system while the model presently being used by climate science can't predict a single planet other than earth and achives its agreement with earth's temperature by violating several laws of physics, making a flat disk of the earth, and denying the fact that night time exists.

That makes no sense at all, and the flat Earth model has already been discussed.

Really, PLC, which one would any rational person believe?

I don't know... your wacky conspiracy theory?

This work came from two PhDs working out of the USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station in CO. It is my understanding that the work is in peer review in the form of a complete paper at this time.

http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C7/C7_Nikolov_M15A.pdf

Well, so let's take a look at it then.

 

[palerider]

OMG! You've written yet another chapter! Well, let's see if there is anything new here this time:

Does it really matter? You haven't answered the information already put before you. In case you might have been wondering, baseless denial doesn't really constitute a rational argument.

If there isn't any single number, why are you so sure that the model is so badly flawed? Your entire argument centers around the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth as shown in a model made to help laymen like me understand what global warming is all about. You've said that the number is based on a flat Earth. Yet, there is no single number?

First, you still fail to recognize the signifigance of the number that kiehl - trenberth represents. It isn't that they believe that only 1/4 of the solar constant is reaching the earth. They use P/4 in order to represent the earth as a flat disk with no night receiving 1/4 of the actual solar radiation. Denial of the fact that the model upon which AGW alarmism is built literally portrays a flat earth doesn't help your argument at all. You were given the actual equation from kiehl - trenberth by which the earth is represented as a flat earth. The fact that it meant nothing to you and that you couldn't recognize the signifigance of that equation doesn't alter the fact of what it means in the least. It merely makes you a member of a congregation operating on faith rather than someone who actually understands the math.

If you could use your brain for just a second, you might realize that if the solar constant is 1370 watts per square meter and if you confine the solar constant to an area of the earth that is no more than 10 degrees from being perpendicular to the disk represented by the solar constant and that area covers about half of the daylight side of the earth, even if the rest of the daylight side were in total darkness, the average would be greater than the number represented by kiehl - trenberth. Even the most basic aspects of this problem are apparently over your head. Why pretend that you get it when it has become more than obvious that you don't?

Exactly. And the figure you're having so much trouble with doesn't. Therefore, your assertion about NASA and the flat Earth is just hooey.

I am not having any problems with the math as I understand it. You clearly do not. I have no problem with the solar constant because I understand how to relate it to a curved hemisphere and know that you don't do it by representing the constant in terms of P/4. The only reason to represent it in terms of P/4 is to describe it in relation to a flat surface. Your constant denial that the energy budget used by warmists represents the earth as a flat disk with no night doesn't alter the fact that that is exactly what it does.

Nothing new there. Same old, same old, the Earth is a sphere, so that means calcullating the amount of energy reaching it is very complex, and way over my head.

Not over my head. I showed you exactly how to do it and gave you more information than someone who could actually do the math needs. Clearly you can't. Hell, you still don't even grasp what expressing the solar constant in terms of P/4 means.

Nothing new there, either. If there is no single number, what makes you so sure that the one used in the model is so far off as to show that the scientists who devised it are trying to put one over on us?

Because if over 1/2 of the daylight side of the earth which is less than 10% from being perpendicular to the flat disk represented by the solar constant is receiving 137o watts per square meter and the rest is receiving less energy from the sun based on a cosine function, then the average must be greater than 342 watts per square meter. Further, the reason the energy budget represents the energy coming in from the sun as 1/4 of the energy budget is because it has the energy hitting a flat earth. That is what the /4 means. It divides the object being irradiated into 4 sections all of which receive the same amount of energy all the time.

That makes no sense at all, and the flat Earth model has already been discussed.

Thus far, all you have done is deny that the energy budget that nasa, ipcc, etc use is based on a flat earth. Even when you were given the specific equation that represents the earth as a flat disk, you had no idea what you were looking at and what it meant.

And of course the referenced information makes no sense to you. It would require at least a basic understanding of the ideal gas laws, adiabatic lapse rates. Hell PLC, you have yet to grasp the signifigance of dividing the solar constant by 4 to express incoming solar energy.

don't know... your wacky conspiracy theory?

Ad hominems in lieu of a rational argument doesn't help your case. What, exactly do you find wacky about an equation that allows one to correctly predict the surface temperature of every planet in the solar system that has a solid surface and an atmosphere? What is actually wacky is the belief in a flat earth energy budget which predicts the temperature of the earth at the expense of at least 3 laws of physics.

I will congratulate you on putting together one of the weakest rebuttals that I have ever seen. Let me know when you can make a specific argument against the formulas that you have been given, especially the kiehl - trenberth equation. Till you can do that, I am afraid that you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[PLC1]

Well, let's review what we have so far. Your position on the issue of the amount of energy reaching Earth is that it is simply wrong, and is based on a flat Earth.

At least, that's what you have said.

Now, here is a review of that issue:


From Gensenica’s post about dogtowner’s link:

According to recent satellite measurements, 1362 Watts per square meter of total solar irradiance arrives at the top of the atmosphere. Since the Earth presents a disk to this insolation but is actually a sphere, this value is divided by 4 (the ratio of the surface area of a disk to that of a sphere), giving 340.5 Watts per square meter, and is also reduced by 30% to allow for the fraction harmlessly reflected to space, giving a characteristic-emission flux of 238.4 Watts per square meter.

Which clearly explains the P/4 you keep bringing up. You, of course, don't like that, as it shoots down your conspiracy theory, so I tried it another way:

Dividing actual energy received by the area of the Earth

Values are given in terms of Watts per square meter. The incoming radiation is about 342 W m-2. But there are about 5.1x1014 square meters for the surface area and so the total incoming energy is about 174 PetaWatts

but you didn't like my big numbers, as that, too, shoots down your conspiracy theory.

So, you resort once again to personal insults:

And more bald faced lies on your part. Are you really this unable to understand anything that I have said or are you so desperate to hold on to your beliefs that you are willing to prostitute your intellect and drag it through any amount of gutter slime?

which again proves you have nothing of value to add.

You did come up with the solar constant:

I gave you the solar constant which isn't a number that is much disputed. 1367 watts per square meter.

This isn't a number that I just made up. It has been accepted with little variation for a very long time and is used in academic publishing with the confidence one might use referencing the speed of light. The number is 1367 watts per square meter.

which I showed was the one based on a flat Earth, not that it was important, as that fact had already been demonstrated.

About that solar constant:
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.[

Palerider’s statement:

I am not disputing NASA, kiehl - trenberth, the ipcc, or anyone else.

I said:

My position is the position of NASA. We have the same position, that science is the best way of determining what is happening, that the Earth is in a warming cycle, and that human activities are accelerating the trend. You can't dispute my position without disputing NASA and every other scientific organization world wide.

I asked

Let me ask you, Palerider, how much energy do you believe is actually coming to the real, revolving, more or less spherical, Earth from the sun?

Your answer:

There isn't a single number.

even though there is a single constant.

Of course, the number given in the little diagram on which you are basing your entire argument is an average.

So, now that we have put that one to bed, what shall we do next?

Simply call it a day?
Bring up the backradiation that you say is impossible?
Discuss why your argument has all of the earmarks of a wacky conspiracy theory?

I know I'll never convince you that your idea is wrong, and so I'll not try. I'm really not interested in beating the dead horse of the amount of solar radiation we receive any further, not in bringing up once again all of the other aspects of your idea.

 

[palerider]

Well, let's review what we have so far. Your position on the issue of the amount of energy reaching Earth is that it is simply wrong, and is based on a flat Earth.

At least, that's what you have said.

No, it's not what I have said. This whole thing is apparently just so far over your head that you can't understand any of it, and frankly I am growing a bit bored having to repeat everything I say a couple of times and see you still not get it. Your misunderstanding goes back to your inability to grasp what this equation means:

It isn't about what he has done with the power. He still recognizes the solar constant with this equation. He hasn't changed that at all. It is about what he has done with the earth as I have told you about 10 times now and it still apparently hasn't sunk in because you are still a mile away from grasping the most basic point to this discussion.
I don't believe for a second that you are going to understand what I am about to say but I am going to try one more time to explain to you what the equation means in regards to the surface of the earth. NOT THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY>>>THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH.

The part of the equation that is on the RIGHT side of the equals sign is a derivative of the Stefan - Boltzman law. A deliberately corrupted deriviative, but a reference to the Stefan - Boltzman law none the less. The Stefan - Boltzman law only handles instantaneous fluxes of energy. NOT AVERAGES. The equation above divides the solar constant by four thus attempting to spread what is an instantaneous flux of solar energy in terms of watts per square meter across the entire surface of the earth at the same time; ie. a flat earth.

Do I expect you to understand that? No, of course not. What I expect is for you to continue to deny that the energy budget upon which the greenhouse model of the earth's atmosphere represents the earth as a flat disk with no night.

Now, here is a review of that issue:

You are not capable of reviewing the issue because you have not understood any of it. You still don't know what the hell I am talking about because you can't understand the math, apparently even when I put it in the simplest terms possible.

Which clearly explains the P/4 you keep bringing up. You, of course, don't like that, as it shoots down your conspiracy theory, so I tried it another way:

It does not explain the P/4. Again, you completely fail to uderstand what the P/4 means. It isn't an attempt to change the solar constant, it isn't an attempt to do anything with the solar constant except apply it to the entire surface of the earth at once. How do you apply a number representing a flat disk to the entire surface of a spherical object at the same time? You make a flat disk of the spherical object and you can lay the entire energy flux of the solar constant across the entire surface of the object at once. Till you are able to grasp that, you aren't going to get any of this.

but you didn't like my big numbers, as that, too, shoots down your conspiracy theory.

There is no conspiracy theory regarding the energy budget. The energy budget is what it is and frankly, you can't deal in numbers large enough to intimidate me. Hell, you can't even get past the most elementary mathematical points of this discussion so that we can move into corruptions of the Stefan -Boltzman laws, vector calculus and how it denies the possiblility of backradiation ever reaching the surface of the earth, and the physics that govern EM fields. You still believe that by dividing the solar flux by 4 that kiehl - trenberth were somehow saying something about the amount of energy the solar constant represents.

So, you resort once again to personal insults:

Stating that this subject is over your head is not an insult. It is an observable, repeatable fact. Pretending to understand it when every time you attempt to reiterate what I have said you completely miss the point makes that fact more than obvious.

Palerider’s statement:

Again, your apparently congenital dishonesty can't be repressed. Why take the statement out of context? What I said was as follows:

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.

The dispute comes after you finally understand what the model is of. If I went directly into the technical disputes regarding the claimed greenhouse effect; ie vector calculus, the physics of EM fields, corruptions of physical laws, you couldn't have possibly grasped a single thing I said. We have been going on for pages now and you still can't understand the most basic point. You completely fail to grasp that P/4 is a means of manipulating the surface that the solar constant is striking, not a means of manipulating the solar constant itself.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

Of course, the number given in the little diagram on which you are basing your entire argument is an average.

And yet again, your complete lack of math shines out in hard relief. When you model the temperature of a curved surface with a number like the solar constant which represents a flat disk, you force yourself to disregard certain physics and in doing so you must fabricate a fiction to explain the temperature at certain points that your model predicts.

The number kiehl trenberth use as incoming solar energy however is not an average. The equation they use is not one to figure an average. Again,

That is not an equation designed to express an average. That is an equation designed to distribute the solar flux (flat disk) less the albedo (1-a) simultaneously across the entire surface of a sphere. The only way to do that is to make a flat disk of the suface of the sphere. You don't understand the math or what it means because you can't accept the fact that you have been misled.

So, now that we have put that one to bed, what shall we do next?

You have put nothing to bed. All you have done thus far is demonstrate over and over that you don't understand the math and have not even the slightest grasp of what it means and that you are completely unwilling to even consider the reality of what the math expresses. Denial is the weakest possible position and that is all you have done thus far.

Simply call it a day?

May as well. It is clear that you aren't capable of getting it.

Bring up the backradiation that you say is impossible?

What is the point? You don't even understand the simple equation above, how are you ever going to understand vectors and how they relate to the interactions of EM fields and the math that explains that whole process?

Discuss why your argument has all of the earmarks of a wacky conspiracy theory?

We haven't even begun to talk about why this energy budget has been accepted and used. At this point, all I have been trying to do is establish a starting point for the discussion. You can't rationally discuss the topic until you understand the central point of the topic and in this case, it is the kiehl - trenberth energy budget. You don't even understand the ramifications of the first equation, much less the entire energy budget.

I know I'll never convince you that your idea is wrong, and so I'll not try.

Of course you won't. Hell, at this point, you don't even begin to grasp what you don't know. You can't even understand what the first, most basic equation that establishes the parameters for the rest of the energy budget means and the funny thing is that you believe you do. You are still under the impression that the P/4 problem is a manipulation of the solar constant, or some sort of average rather than a manipulation of the suface the solar constant is interacting with. Till you understand that, you can't move further in any sort of intelligent way.

The only person you might convince at this point is someone who doesn't have any more of a mathermatical background than yourself which, unfortunately is a very large number. You are indicative of how badly our educational system has failed the population.

I'm really not interested in beating the dead horse of the amount of solar radiation we receive any further, not in bringing up once again all of the other aspects of your idea.

PLC, there is no dispute over the solar constant. Try real hard here:

The equation above is where kiehl - trenberth start building their energy budget. You see the capital F there on top of the line? That F represents the solar flux at the top of the atmosphere. The F is the solar flux. 1370 watts per square meter. The (1-a) is an expression of an estimation of the amount of energy lost due to the earth's albedo. That is, energy that they are subtracting so that it doesn't even become part of the energy budget. They have used the solar constant. They are acknowledging that the solar constant is the amount of energy less the albedo is the amount of energy they are dealing with. There is no dispute over the amount of energy coming in or striking the earth. How difficult is that for you to understand?

This is how far behind the curve you are PLC. You understand so little of the math that you don't even know what the discussion is about. You are still laboring under the impression that I think that they have somehow changed the solar constant and you are still trying to argue that point when that never was the point. I never suggested that they were changing the solar constant. That couldn't possibly be further from the point of this discussion.

Now, see the 4 under the line? That is how they apply the number on top of the line to the subject of the discussion; ie. the surface of the earth. They are taking an instantaneous solar flux and applying it to the entire surface of the earth at one time. NO NIGHT TIME. ALL THE LIGHT COMING IN ALL THE TIME except at 1/4 of the intensity. How do you do that? Again, you make a flat disk of the receiver of the incoming solar flux. I can't make it any simpler than that and if you can't, or won't understand that most basic fact of the energy budget, then you simply aren't up to this discussion.

I have really tried, and have made every effort to explain this in the simplest terms. I have avoided technical language to the best of my ability and tried to speak in everyday language that anyone can understand. If you don't, or won't understand, simply say so. There is no disgrace in not understanding a thing. But geez guy, stop acting like you do and making arguments that don't even address the topic of the discussion.

 

[PLC1]

You can not argue with a conspiracy theorist. They will simply say that their theory is over your head, and that, obviously, anyone who counters their theory is a part of the conspiracy.

I knew that going in, but had no idea just how much repetition of the same issues would be evoked.

So, OK, government is in cahoots with every scientific organization in the world, they have made a model showing the wrong amount of energy reaching the surface of the Earth, and that proves that the theory of global warming is simply junk science. Only the person behind the persona of Palerider is capable of understanding it.

 

[dogtowner]

You can not argue with a conspiracy theorist. They will simply say that their theory is over your head, and that, obviously, anyone who counters their theory is a part of the conspiracy.

I knew that going in, but had no idea just how much repetition of the same issues would be evoked.

So, OK, government is in cahoots with every scientific organization in the world, they have made a model showing the wrong amount of energy reaching the surface of the Earth, and that proves that the theory of global warming is simply junk science. Only the person behind the persona of Palerider is capable of understanding it.

I get it. this link I found helpful.

 

[PLC1]

I get it. this link I found helpful.

Yes, we do have some questioning of the degree to which manmade greenhouse gasses are responsible for the observed increase in temperature. This interesting hypothesis does not support the idea that the scientific organizations are saying what governemnt wants to hear from them in order to keep their funding going, but it does refine the theory to a degree.

How much global warming is due to human activities has been an issue of contention among scientists for some time now. That issue hasn't been resolved.

 

[dogtowner]

Yes, we do have some questioning of the degree to which manmade greenhouse gasses are responsible for the observed increase in temperature. This interesting hypothesis does not support the idea that the scientific organizations are saying what governemnt wants to hear from them in order to keep their funding going, but it does refine the theory to a degree.

How much global warming is due to human activities has been an issue of contention among scientists for some time now. That issue hasn't been resolved.

true, that aspect of the "settled science" is not so very settled.

the turf protection aspect is simple survival of the fittest. politicians saw dollar signs in this in a number of ways (cap-n-trade with a little for me off the top) and so the perhaps unintended marriage was born. thats actually a pretty good reason to get government out of the science business. with money comes strings and when those strings have the considerable heft of government on the other end....

 

[palerider]

You can not argue with a conspiracy theorist. They will simply say that their theory is over your head, and that, obviously, anyone who counters their theory is a part of the conspiracy.

We haven't even got to the point to where we can talk about why kiehl - trenberth's energy budget might have been accepted and used as a basis for AGW alarmism. As to the facts of the energy budget as I have laid out, there is no theory there. What I have told you about the energy budget so far is fact. If you believe I have attempted to mislead you on the formulae I have provided, then state exactly where you believe I am wrong and show me how you believe what I have presented is different from the formula that kiehl - trenberth use.

Your weak response isn't fooling anyone. You have made it more than obvious that the topic is indeed way over your head.

I knew that going in, but had no idea just how much repetition of the same issues would be evoked.

Till you can grasp the basics, the conversation can not proceed.

So, OK, government is in cahoots with every scientific organization in the world, they have made a model showing the wrong amount of energy reaching the surface of the Earth, and that proves that the theory of global warming is simply junk science. Only the person behind the persona of Palerider is capable of understanding it.

But DAMN you are stupid. How many times does it have to be explained to you that this discussion is not about how much energy is reaching the earth. It is about the fact that kiehl - trenbert have it illuminating the entire earth at the same time and the only way to do that is to have a flat earth. If you can't grasp even that most basic fact, how do you believe you could possibly rationally discuss the more complex issues.

 

[PLC1]

We haven't even got to the point to where we can talk about why kiehl - trenberth's energy budget might have been accepted and used as a basis for AGW alarmism. As to the facts of the energy budget as I have laid out, there is no theory there. What I have told you about the energy budget so far is fact. If you believe I have attempted to mislead you on the formulae I have provided, then state exactly where you believe I am wrong and show me how you believe what I have presented is different from the formula that kiehl - trenberth use.

Your weak response isn't fooling anyone. You have made it more than obvious that the topic is indeed way over your head.



Till you can grasp the basics, the conversation can not proceed.



But DAMN you are stupid. How many times does it have to be explained to you that this discussion is not about how much energy is reaching the earth. It is about the fact that kiehl - trenbert have it illuminating the entire earth at the same time and the only way to do that is to have a flat earth. If you can't grasp even that most basic fact, how do you believe you could possibly rationally discuss the more complex issues.

Thanks a lot. You're making my case for me. The only way a conspiracy theorist can support his views is to call anyone who disagrees stupid and claim that the issue is way over his head.

The discussion is about how much energy is reaching Earth, according to the diagram you seem to be having such a problem with. It has been shown over and over that the division by four, which you say is wrong, is how you account for the fact that the Earth is a sphere. You're the one who brought up the figure given in the diagram.

If the amount of energy reaching the Earth is not at issue, why did you bring it up at all?

 

[palerider]

I get it. this link I found helpful.

I don't subscribe to mockton either. He is willing to overthrow a couple of laws of physics in order to have "some" backradiaton from so called greenhouse gasses warming the earth. I see little difference between warmists and luke warmists. Neither can square their thoughts with the laws of physics.