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

[PLC1]

(continuation)



Yes, if you used an insulator you could retain more heat than you would if you had no insulation. But the "balanced" energy budget that you keep referring to requires that those reflectors cause that heater to radiate more than 200 watts, over 100 of which you are not paying the electric company for because you would be creating energy.

Before you begin to try to pass CO2 and the other greenhouse gasses off as insulation, however, perhaps we need to look at what the science dictionary says is and is not an insulator.

insulator - A material or an object that does not easily allow heat, electricity, light, or sound to pass through it. Air, cloth and rubber are good electrical insulators; feathers and wool make good thermal insulators. Compare conductor.

In order to be an insulator, a material must prevent or retard heat (or radiation in this case). CO2 does not retard IR radiation. Of course it absorbs IR in a very narrow wavelength, as indicated by its absorption spectra. Its emission spectra however is precisely the opposite of its absorption spectra which tells us that it emits exactly as much radiation as it absorbs. IR passes through CO2 molecules at or very near the speed of light and is not slowed down in the least. That narrow wavelength of IR that does get absorbed and emitted, however, does get scattered and scattering IR serves to cool, not warm.

Now, lets take a look at what a conductor is:

conductor - A material or an object that conducts heat, electricity, light, or sound. Electrical conductors contain electric charges (usually electrons) that are relatively free to move through the material; a voltage applied across the conductor therefore creates an electric current. Insulators (electrical nonconductors) contain no charges that move when subject to a voltage.

Clearly, CO2 is a conductor. That is, it facilitates the exit of the narrow band of IR that it absorbs on its way out of the atmosphere. CO2 has no capacity to hold or store heat. There is one molecule in the atmosphere that can actually store heat but alas, there is no political advantage to demonizing that gas because we can do nothing about it. That gas is water vapor.



But the atmosphere does not act as an insulator. It is a conductor.



It is supposed to show that you can not get the heater to radiate more than 100 watts no matter how many reflectors or how much insulation you use. You are never going to get energy out of that heater that you don't have to pay the power company for. In the so called "balanced" energy budgets, however, you must create an additional 332 watts of energy by reflecting it from the cooler atmosphere down to the surface of the earth where it is absorbed and re emitted. Your balanced energy budget requires that the surface of the earth radiate more than 300 watts per square meter above and beyond that which it absorbs from the sun. It is balanced at the expense of the laws of physics. The numbers on trenberth's energy budget are the basis for the energy budgets for NASA, GISS, the IPCC, etc. and they are all fraudulent.

Of course, the atmosphere doesn't act as an insulator.

and no, you can'tget more than 100 watts out of a 100 watt heater.

As for the energy balance, both the chart you posted and the NASA site I went to showed that there is such a balance.

 

[dogtowner]

Those laws of physics are pesky so and so's aren't they?

well that's why they're laws and not guidelines.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm so happy ! you boys are moving the ball forward now and I'm enjoying the show.
THANK YOU BOTH !

 

[palerider]

Of course, the atmosphere doesn't act as an insulator.

and no, you can'tget more than 100 watts out of a 100 watt heater.

As for the energy balance, both the chart you posted and the NASA site I went to showed that there is such a balance.

The chart you posted and the one I posted are the same. Yours simply states percentages of energy moving about but really doesn't tell you anything. Mine is specific, stating how much is moving about, how much you are getting, and how much you are losing. The two may be analogized to a general budget (yours) vs a spreadsheet register of transactions (mine).

Yes, there is a balance, but the method used to achieve the balance invalidates the whole exercise. The balance is achieved by having the surface of the earth radiate more than twice as much energy as it absorbs from the sun.

If you were overdrawn in your checking account by 100 dollars, you could balance your checkbook by simply writing in an additional 100 dollars that you never got. The numbers on the paper would balance but would it mean anything? By the same token, NASA, hansen, GISS, IPCC, et al are operating from an energy budget that is balanced by creating more than 300 watts per square meter from nothing. Of what use is it to say the energy budget is balanced if you have to create energy (violation of the law of conservation of energy) by violating the second law of energy in order to achieve the balance?

Scientifically, it is meaningless. Politically, it might be quite valuable if the majority of your target audience lacks the education to see, and grasp the ramifications of your bit of sleight of hand; and that is precisely what that "balance" is. Sleight of hand. Take away that 332 watts per square meter that the laws of physics state explicitly can not be and your budget is way out of balance. Out of balance by more than twice the amount of energy absorbed by the surface of the earth by the sun.

Simply stating that the budgets are balanced is only effective so long as the question of how the budgets are balanced is never asked. Unfortunately, the question is being asked.

There is the budget. It appears to be balanced. Each of the numbers on that page have their place within the balance. Take one away, and you no longer have a balance. If you take your checkbook to your accountant he will look at it and compare it to a bank statement. Each transaction will be looked at. All your withdrawals, all your deposits, interest and penalties if applicable all have their place in reaching that bottom line. He will call into question that 100 dollars you wrote down in order to achieve a balance. If you can explain the 100, you are in business. If you can't, it must be erased and again, your account is overdrawn.

I am calling that 333 watts per square meter in backradiation absorbed by the surface into question. The energy budget clearly states that it is absorbed by the surface of the earth from the atmosphere and is therefore crucial to achieving the balance. The second law of thermodynamics clearly states that heat will not move from a cooler body (the atmosphere) to a warmer body (the surface of the earth) In fact, the second law of thermodynamics states that it is not possible.

Without that 333 watts per square meter, your "balanced" budget is gone and you are out of balance by more than twice what you are receiving at the surface of the earth from the sun. The time has come to explain that 333 watts per square meter of energy. Where does it come from? How does it come into existence if the second law of thermodynamics and the law of conservation of energy state that the mechanism explaining the number's presence and place in the budget is not possible?

 

[PLC1]

So, there are two possibilities.

Either the scientists at NASA failed to notice that their theory depends on much more energy leaving the surface of the Earth than it receives, or your model is leaving something out.

You have decided that those scientists have either ignored that glaring discrepancy, or are trying to put one over on the rest of us (apparently, from the words you have posted).

Let's see what the "warmists" at NASA are claiming: (from the link I posted earlier)

To understand how the Earth’s climate system balances the energy budget, we have to consider processes occurring at the three levels: the surface of the Earth, where most solar heating takes place; the edge of Earth’s atmosphere, where sunlight enters the system; and the atmosphere in between. At each level, the amount of incoming and outgoing energy, or net flux, must be equal.

Hmmm.. so they say that the energy budget has to balance at the surface, so they must understand that energy can't be created in the Earth's surface, and they're saying so, too. If they were trying to put one over on us, they wouldn't admit that energy can't be produced in the dirt.

Let's see what those "warmists" are claiming is a good model:

Well, that's pretty close. Add it up, and it leaves 1% unaccounted for. I'd be willing to bet that is due to rounding, but, then, you may think it is due to them trying to claim that ... wait... that shows 1% more being absorbed.

That model is quite different from the one you posted, isn't it?

Perhaps, if you read the explanation given by the "warmists" at NASA, you'll uncover the rest of their nefarious plot to deceive the world.

 

[PLC1]

I'm so happy ! you boys are moving the ball forward now and I'm enjoying the show.
THANK YOU BOTH !

and a merry Christmas to you, too, and may your favorite team win.

VCU? Rams? I thought you must be from somewhere that they had a doggie mascot, perhaps the Huskies or something.

 

[dogtowner]

and a merry Christmas to you, too, and may your favorite team win.

VCU? Rams? I thought you must be from somewhere that they had a doggie mascot, perhaps the Huskies or something.

No. We who grew up north of the James River refer to south of the James as "Dogtown". One by one my entire family moved to Dogtown ergo Dogtowner.

Merry Christmas to you and yours and a New Year of dreams realized.

 

[palerider]

So, there are two possibilities.

No. There is one possibility. I have no doubt that the scientists at NASA know what they have perpetrated.

You have decided that those scientists have either ignored that glaring discrepancy, or are trying to put one over on the rest of us (apparently, from the words you have posted).

I have "decided" nothing. I have analyzed the budget and applied the laws of physics to it and see an error. I am not the only one, by the way, who has seen the error.

Hmmm.. so they say that the energy budget has to balance at the surface, so they must understand that energy can't be created in the Earth's surface, and they're saying so, too. If they were trying to put one over on us, they wouldn't admit that energy can't be produced in the dirt.

I don't know why you insist on mischaracterizing my statements. Do you really not grasp what I have been saying, or rather than argue against the statements I make are you simply creating strawmen? I have never said that energy can, or is, or that the energy budgets of NASA, or anyone else is claiming that energy is being produced in the dirt. If you can't understand the concepts, then simply say so and I will try to think of some less complex way to explain it to you. If you have no argument to my statments, then say so as well.

Let's see what those "warmists" are claiming is a good model:

Well, that's pretty close. Add it up, and it leaves 1% unaccounted for. I'd be willing to bet that is due to rounding, but, then, you may think it is due to them trying to claim that ... wait... that shows 1% more being absorbed.

Again, that grapic doesn't tell you anything about how much energy is coming in and how much is moving around. It is little more than you simply writing "balanced" in your checkbook without providing any information. That graphic is based on the energy budget below which is also balanced. But again, it is balanced at the expense of the laws of physics. I am asking you to explain that 333 watts per square meter labeled as backradiation from the atmosphere that is shown as being absorbed by the surface of the earth in opposition to the second law of physics. Can you explain that 333 watts per square meter or not? Simply repeating "balanced budget" "balanced budget" "balanced budget" ad nauseum doesn't get to the heart of the issue which is a fraud being perpetrated on those who lack the education to see and understand it.

That model is quite different from the one you posted, isn't it?

No. The one you just posted is based on the graphic that I posted above and have been posting. You don't seem to understand that your graphics are showing percentages but aren't giving you any actual information. If you take the graphic I just posted above and work out the percentages incoming and outgoing, you will get the same percentages as your own graphic. It will balance the same way your graphic balances. But it balances because of that 333 watts per square meter being claimed as backradition from the cooler atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer earth in blatant disregard for the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat can not flow from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)

I really don't know how I might make this simpler for you. Seriously, my grandson (10 years old) gets this. He wouldn't have realized the 333 watts per square meter of backradion is a sham, but once that was explained to him, he understands that something is not right. If you can add and subtract, you should be able to get this as well. It appears that you are unwilling to consider anything that might suggest that the scientists at NASA, or wherever your priests reside might not have been perfectly honest in their claims of anthropogenic sources for global warming.

Perhaps, if you read the explanation given by the "warmists" at NASA, you'll uncover the rest of their nefarious plot to deceive the world.

I have read what NASA has to say. I am asking you to explain that 333 watts per square meter in backradion. Can you or can't you? Providing simpler and simpler graphics that don't do any more than claim a balance and don't begin to tell you the actual values does not constitute a rational argument. I am asking about that 333 watts per square meter of backradiation. Can you explain it or not? Are you even prepared to discuss it?

 

[palerider]

I don't know if I will be around to post any more till Wednesday, but if I don't, here's hoping all of you have a very merry Christmas.

 

[PLC1]

No. There is one possibility. I have no doubt that the scientists at NASA know what they have perpetrated.

You say that, which shows you have decided which of the two possibilities is the correct one,

I have "decided" nothing. I have analyzed the budget and applied the laws of physics to it and see an error. I am not the only one, by the way, who has seen the error.

see?
Do you really think that the scientists at NASA haven't seen the "error" you have pointed out? Really?

I don't know why you insist on mischaracterizing my statements. Do you really not grasp what I have been saying, or rather than argue against the statements I make are you simply creating strawmen? I have never said that energy can, or is, or that the energy budgets of NASA, or anyone else is claiming that energy is being produced in the dirt. If you can't understand the concepts, then simply say so and I will try to think of some less complex way to explain it to you. If you have no argument to my statments, then say so as well.

If you're arguing that the "warmers" believe, or are trying to make us believe, that more energy is being radiated from the ground into space than actually reaches the ground, then it follows that you believe that they are saying that energy is being produced in the ground somewhere.

I thought that energy was being produced in the atmosphere, or was that just because of the words you posted?

Again, that grapic doesn't tell you anything about how much energy is coming in and how much is moving around. It is little more than you simply writing "balanced" in your checkbook without providing any information. That graphic is based on the energy budget below which is also balanced. But again, it is balanced at the expense of the laws of physics. I am asking you to explain that 333 watts per square meter labeled as backradiation from the atmosphere that is shown as being absorbed by the surface of the earth in opposition to the second law of physics. Can you explain that 333 watts per square meter or not? Simply repeating "balanced budget" "balanced budget" "balanced budget" ad nauseum doesn't get to the heart of the issue which is a fraud being perpetrated on those who lack the education to see and understand it.

Anyone can see what you've pointed out: The model you've posted shows more energy coming from the ground than going in. As I've already said, that means that your graphic is leaving something out, not that real scientists or anyone who has been through elementary science, believes that is what is intended.

No. The one you just posted is based on the graphic that I posted above and have been posting. You don't seem to understand that your graphics are showing percentages but aren't giving you any actual information. If you take the graphic I just posted above and work out the percentages incoming and outgoing, you will get the same percentages as your own graphic. It will balance the same way your graphic balances. But it balances because of that 333 watts per square meter being claimed as backradition from the cooler atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer earth in blatant disregard for the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat can not flow from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)

I really don't know how I might make this simpler for you. Seriously, my grandson (10 years old) gets this. He wouldn't have realized the 333 watts per square meter of backradion is a sham, but once that was explained to him, he understands that something is not right. If you can add and subtract, you should be able to get this as well. It appears that you are unwilling to consider anything that might suggest that the scientists at NASA, or wherever your priests reside might not have been perfectly honest in their claims of anthropogenic sources for global warming.

Your conclusion is very simple. Your graphic is simple, also, It is leaving something out.

I have read what NASA has to say. I am asking you to explain that 333 watts per square meter in backradion. Can you or can't you? Providing simpler and simpler graphics that don't do any more than claim a balance and don't begin to tell you the actual values does not constitute a rational argument. I am asking about that 333 watts per square meter of backradiation. Can you explain it or not? Are you even prepared to discuss it?

According to the words published by NASA scientists, they don't believe that.

Can you actually quote anything that says what you're claiming, or are you just basing it on one graphic you've found?

I have "decided" nothing. I have analyzed the budget and applied the laws of physics to it and see an error. I am not the only one, by the way, who has seen the error.



I don't know why you insist on mischaracterizing my statements. Do you really not grasp what I have been saying, or rather than argue against the statements I make are you simply creating strawmen? I have never said that energy can, or is, or that the energy budgets of NASA, or anyone else is claiming that energy is being produced in the dirt. If you can't understand the concepts, then simply say so and I will try to think of some less complex way to explain it to you. If you have no argument to my statments, then say so as well.

where are you saying that the scientists believe that extra energy is coming from, then?

Again, that grapic doesn't tell you anything about how much energy is coming in and how much is moving around. It is little more than you simply writing "balanced" in your checkbook without providing any information. That graphic is based on the energy budget below which is also balanced. But again, it is balanced at the expense of the laws of physics. I am asking you to explain that 333 watts per square meter labeled as backradiation from the atmosphere that is shown as being absorbed by the surface of the earth in opposition to the second law of physics. Can you explain that 333 watts per square meter or not? Simply repeating "balanced budget" "balanced budget" "balanced budget" ad nauseum doesn't get to the heart of the issue which is a fraud being perpetrated on those who lack the education to see and understand it.

No. The one you just posted is based on the graphic that I posted above and have been posting. You don't seem to understand that your graphics are showing percentages but aren't giving you any actual information. If you take the graphic I just posted above and work out the percentages incoming and outgoing, you will get the same percentages as your own graphic. It will balance the same way your graphic balances. But it balances because of that 333 watts per square meter being claimed as backradition from the cooler atmosphere being absorbed by the warmer earth in blatant disregard for the second law of thermodynamics which states that heat can not flow from a cooler object (the atmosphere) to a warmer object (the surface of the earth)

I really don't know how I might make this simpler for you. Seriously, my grandson (10 years old) gets this. He wouldn't have realized the 333 watts per square meter of backradion is a sham, but once that was explained to him, he understands that something is not right. If you can add and subtract, you should be able to get this as well. It appears that you are unwilling to consider anything that might suggest that the scientists at NASA, or wherever your priests reside might not have been perfectly honest in their claims of anthropogenic sources for global warming.



I have read what NASA has to say. I am asking you to explain that 333 watts per square meter in backradion. Can you or can't you? Providing simpler and simpler graphics that don't do any more than claim a balance and don't begin to tell you the actual values does not constitute a rational argument. I am asking about that 333 watts per square meter of backradiation. Can you explain it or not? Are you even prepared to discuss it?

There are a couple of problems with your idea.

Firstly, it is based on the interpretation of one graphic you've found.
Secondly, it is so simplistic as to be absurd.
Thirdly, if scientists who are trying to tell us that the Earth is warming are, at the same time, telling us that more energy is being radiated back into space than is reaching the ground, then they would have to conclude that the Earth is cooling, not warming.

I'm really not sure what is wrong with your graphic, but it is obvious that something is.

 

[palerider]

Anyone can see what you've pointed out: The model you've posted shows more energy coming from the ground than going in. As I've already said, that means that your graphic is leaving something out, not that real scientists or anyone who has been through elementary science, believes that is what is intended.

OK. Now we are getting somewhere. This is key and cuts directly to the chase. You are apparently laboring under the impression that the graphic I keep posting is something produced by a skeptic. If it were from a skeptic, I wouldn't even bother posting it as it would not mean anything to you even if everyting on it were absolutely correct. That energy budget was produced by J. T. Kiehl and Kevin Trenberth. Apparently those names mean nothing to you but they are most DEFINATELY not skeptics or deniers or whatever you care to call people on my side of the discussion. These guys are the royalty of AGW. Every bit of research done in an effort to show that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause warming rests on the research done by these two men. These two are the literal top dogs in the climate change business.

J.T. Kiehl is the senior scientist in the research section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR? Perhaps you have heard of them. He also serves as the section head of the research section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. In addition, he is also the chairman of UCAR at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Al Gore worships at this man's feet.

Kevin Trenberth stands as tall as Kiehl in climate change circles. Trenberth is the Senior Scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He was a lead author of the 1995, 2001 and 2007 Scientific Assessment of Climate Change reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize which went to the IPCC. He served from 1999 to 2006 on the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), and he chaired the WCRP Observation and Assimilation Panel from 2004 to 2010 and now chairs the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) scientific steering group. He edited a 788 page book Climate System Modeling, published in 1992 by Cambridge University Press. He has published over 470 scientific articles or papers, including 47 books or book chapters, and over 206 refereed journal articles and has given many invited scientific talks as well as appearing in a number of television, radio programs and newspaper articles. He is listed among the top 20 authors in highest citations in all of geophysics.

Understand that that energy budget which you just so graciously pointed out as an ameturish junk is the product of the two apex anthropogenic climate change researchers. It pleases me a great deal to see that you can see now that the basis upon which all claims of anthropogenic climate change are founded is very suspicious and is, in your words, leaving something out". Just to hammer home how large the man made climate change hoax is, I suggest that you might look up 50 or so peer reviewed papers that claim to prove manmade global warming is real and see how many of them either reference Kiehl and or Trenberth or were reviewed by one or both of them.

Like I said, I would never have posted an energy budget put together by a skeptic although there are several which are balanced and don't require any breaking of the laws of physics and don't require a fictitious greenhouse effect. I could only prove my point by using the science upon which your position is based and never really in my wildest dreams expected you to actually be so critical of the basis for your position.

If I may, I would just like to list your quotes regarding the basis for all claims of anthropogenic climate change.

Your conclusion is very simple. Your graphic is simple, also, It is leaving something out.

Firstly, it is based on the interpretation of one graphic you've found.

Secondly, it is so simplistic as to be absurd.

Thirdly, if scientists who are trying to tell us that the Earth is warming are, at the same time, telling us that more energy is being radiated back into space than is reaching the ground, then they would have to conclude that the Earth is cooling, not warming.

I'm really not sure what is wrong with your graphic, but it is obvious that something is.

I doubt that this conversation would have gone anything like this had you actually recognized the graphic or the names of the men who concocted it. Like I said, look up some of those peer reviewed papers which you trust so blindly and see how many reference kiehl and trenberth.

I should state that I really don't think that there is some massive conspiracy amongst all climate scientists to perpetuate a hoax. Climate science is not a hard science and as such, doesn't require the same sort of education as one who enters the hard sciences might receive. kiehl and trenberth however, are hard scientists and as such, I believe that a large percentage of climate scientists simply take their work at face value. They accept that energy budget that I keep posting based on the names of the men who published it and assume it is correct and make that flawed data the basis upon which they build thier research.

So now, about that 333 watts per square meter that is supposedly radiated from the cooler atmosphere back to the surface of the earth where it is claimed to be absorbed?

 

[PLC1]

I thought Palerider ws gone until Wednesday. Apparently, the question of the energy reaching Earth from the atmosphere is more important, so I looked it up here: and here:

It seems the chart is counting the same energy twice:

A separate energy balance for the space above the atmosphere, the atmosphere and the Earth surface. Everything is in equilibrium.
Solar radiation is shown in yellow, long wave infrared radiation in red. A certain fraction of the energy is also needed for evaporation of water and thermal transfer. Please note, that certainly not more energy can reach the Earth surface than the sun brings in. The 492 W /m2 count the same energy twice, first coming from the sun, then, after being emitted from the Earth again as re-emission from greenhouse gases. This allows to separate both processes.

It seems the problem with the model is that it doesn't explain where the extra energy is coming from, and so we have some people misinterpreting it to mean that more energy is coming to Earth than the sun gives us. Now, of course, that's impossible, so there must either be a simple explanation, or there must be some hoax being perpetrated, with the scientists not noticing that the laws of thermodynamics have been violated.

As Occam's razor states, the simplest explanation is the correct one: The 492 W /m2 count the same energy twice, first coming from the sun, then, after being emitted from the Earth again as re-emission from greenhouse gases.

So, the model is counting the same energy twice.

 

[palerider]

So, the model is counting the same energy twice.

And that my friend, is the basis of AGW alarmism. Without that 333 watts per square meter of backadiation, there is no climate crisis and the two guys at the very top of the heap, the two guys who are the virtual fathers of modern climate science gave them to us. All of climate alarmism is based on that 333 watts per square meter of backradiation and backradiation, the second law of thermodynamics tells us, is not possible.

There are numerous attempts out there to try and explain away that 333 watts of backradiation. Pages and pages of rationalization exist. The fact remains, however, that kiehl and trenberth both hold PhD's in the hard sciences and are more than intelligent enough and perfectly capable of expressing thier energy budget as they intend it to be expressed. That budget, with minor modifications has been around for quite some time and as much writing as has been done in an attempt to explain away that 333 watts per square meter of backradiation, if there was some unintentional error on the author's part, it would have been corrected. It is still there because kiehl and trenberth believe that it exists, or want everyone else to believe it exists because without it, there is no climate crisis, no climate alarmism, and climatologists are back to fighting for the few TV weatherman jobs out there in order to make a decent paycheck.

Science of doom? You are going to those guys for an explanation of backradiation? Really guy, they are about the most dishonest AGW zealots out there right next to skeptical science. For example, they will give you all those measurements of downdwelling longwave radiation (backradiation) taken by various sites, but they won't tell you so much about the instrumentation used to take those measurements.

All those measurements are taken with instruments that are cooled to a temperature of about minus 100 degrees. By cooling the instrument to a temperature that is cooler than most of the atmosphere, energy in the form of backradion can flow into and be measured by the instrument in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

Less expensive instruments that are not cooled use a math trick which I don't have time to explain now in order to guess how much backradiation they would receive if they were cooled to a temperature lower than the atmosphere so that energy could actually flow to them. There is no backradiation reaching the surface of the earth exactly as the second law of thermodynamics states.

I can give you a simple experiment that you can do in your own back yard that provides hard, observable, repeatable evidence that backradiation does not exist. I don't have time now, but will get to it.

By the way, again, you misinterpreted my words. I didn't say that I was going to be gone till Tuesday, I said that I didn't know whether or not I would be around to post. Two different things. As plans modify themselves, I have more or less free time of my own.

 

[PLC1]

And that my friend, is the basis of AGW alarmism. Without that 333 watts per square meter of backadiation, there is no climate crisis and the two guys at the very top of the heap, the two guys who are the virtual fathers of modern climate science gave them to us. All of climate alarmism is based on that 333 watts per square meter of backradiation and backradiation, the second law of thermodynamics tells us, is not possible.

This is the crux of your argument, is it not?

 

[palerider]

This is the crux of your argument, is it not?

No. My main argument with climate science is the fact that the models portray a lteral flat earth receiving incoming energy from the sun at 25% of actual 24 hours a day. It is like saying that if your turkey must cook for 3 hours at 350 degrees, you could get the same result if you cooked it for 12 hours at 87.5 degrees. Sorry, but the end results would be quite different. Use the actual recommended temperature and time and you have a great meal. Use the assumed modification and you end up in the hospital and perhaps dead.

The 333 watts per square meter of backradiation and the entire greenhouse effect is no more than an ad hoc construct to attempt to explain the temperature of the earth that the flat earth 1/4 incoming power model yields.