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

[PLC1]

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.

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.

 

[palerider]

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.

 

[PLC1]

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.

So, the impossibility of "backradiation" is a part of your position only.

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.

So, you think it has somehow escaped NASA that the Earth is round, that the sun only shines on the day side, and that it is colder near the poles due to less sunlight striking it there, and that the Earth is not self illuminating, like a star?

and you've uncovered this error, is that your point?

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.

I see. So, they knew what they were doing, and are putting one over on us by claiming less heat is coming from the sun.

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.

and it's easy to fool them because they don't have as much education in the hard sciences as you do?

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.

OK, that is a repetition of the above. Let's see if I have your POV figured out now:

Scientists have modeled the energy budget of hte Earth as if it were flat and receiving energy from the sun equally all over 24/7. The actual energy that the Earth receives from the sun is 4 times as much as their model shows due to using the wrong formula for calculating the energy received.

Moreover, the back radiation is not possible because the atmosphere is cooler than the ground it is supposedly heating.

Now, am I understanding your point of view, or is there something else?

 

[palerider]

Clearly the science is over your head and you are unwilling to accept the fact that you have been had. Your knowledge base is so small that you didn't even realize that the graphic I provided was not only the basis for AGW alarmism, but came from the two biggest hitters on your side of the argument. Seek solace in your faith while you can because the walls of your temple are cracking. I suggest you begin to devise an exit strategy so you won't have to face a crisis of faith when your religion fails you.

 

[PLC1]

Clearly the science is over your head and you are unwilling to accept the fact that you have been had. Your knowledge base is so small that you didn't even realize that the graphic I provided was not only the basis for AGW alarmism, but came from the two biggest hitters on your side of the argument. Seek solace in your faith while you can because the walls of your temple are cracking. I suggest you begin to devise an exit strategy so you won't have to face a crisis of faith when your religion fails you.

The science is not over my head, and you made it perfectly clear that the graphic was created by "warmists".

What is over my head is how you think you've caught NASA and every other scientific organization in the world claiming that the Earth is flat and that there is more energy coming from the sun than they realize.

I'm not sure your points are really "over my head", whether you're just doing a poor job of explaining them, or whether your supposed exposure of the incompetence and or dishonesty of "warmers" is really as absurd as what I've gathered from your posts.

Remember, I can only go by the words you have posted, and can not look into your head and see what is there.

Now, either my summary of your points is accurate, and we have something to discuss, or

I have completely misunderstood the points you're trying to make, or

you're about to come up with something else.

 

[dogtowner]

makes sense to me. how many dimensions does the earth exist in in the picture ?
looks like two to me. obviously the earth is not flat. (skip below)

I think that their use of the term "global annual mean" is intended to explain this representation perhaps on the basis that over the course of the year things sort of even out and somehow an average is derived to explain the obvious differences between poles and equator.

I'm not clear if y'all have an agreed upon average per meter (or whatever other unit makes sense) that accommodates the variable nature of the earth's shapes. Or that the effect of winds has been accommodated.

 

[palerider]

The science is not over my head, and you made it perfectly clear that the graphic was created by "warmists".

Not just warmists. THE warmists.

What is over my head is how you think you've caught NASA and every other scientific organization in the world claiming that the Earth is flat and that there is more energy coming from the sun than they realize.

This may come as a surprise to you, like the fact that the graphic was done by the top dogs on your side of the argument, but I am not the one who caught this. As I said, physicists, (including nobel prize winning physicists) astrophysicists, chemists, (including nobel prize winning chemists), mathematicians and advanced computer modellers have been on this since the energy budget first came out.

And what you call every organization in the world, which really only amounts to the political heads of those organizations are perfectly aware that the models depict a flat earth being irradiated by the sun at 1/4 of the actual amount 24 hours a day. That is no secret to anyone except perhaps you. Maybe if you actually did some research rather than blindly believing, you would know these basic facts.

I'm not sure your points are really "over my head", whether you're just doing a poor job of explaining them, or whether your supposed exposure of the incompetence and or dishonesty of "warmers" is really as absurd as what I've gathered from your posts.

The accepted and promoted energy budget by kiehl and trenberth is indeed absurd but it does manage to demonize CO2 and creates an opportunity for political gain. What you seem unwilling to accept and apparently refuse to research on your own is the fact that I have described the energy budget behind AGW alarmism precisely as it exists. That the budget is absurd is absolutely correct, but there it is none the less.

Remember, I can only go by the words you have posted, and can not look into your head and see what is there.

I am very deliberate in what I say and my statements require no interpretation.

Now, either my summary of your points is accurate, and we have something to discuss, or

I have completely misunderstood the points you're trying to make, or

you're about to come up with something else.

If you have read and understood the words I wrote and can comprehend what they say without adding your own spin to them, then you have the basis of my argument against AGW alarmism. From here, either you can explain that 333 watts per square meter of backradion or you can't. If you can, and keep the explanation within the bounds of the laws of physics, you will be the first and will probably be the next nobel prize winner. Good luck with that.

 

[palerider]

makes sense to me. how many dimensions does the earth exist in in the picture ?
looks like two to me. obviously the earth is not flat. (skip below)

I think that their use of the term "global annual mean" is intended to explain this representation perhaps on the basis that over the course of the year things sort of even out and somehow an average is derived to explain the obvious differences between poles and equator.

That's what you might think, but if you are going to model the earth as a flat, with no night time, why would you bother trying to calculate the differences between the amount of energy absorbed along a north/south line.

The model assumes that 1 hour at 400 degrees will produce the same results as 4 hours at 100 degrees.

I'm not clear if y'all have an agreed upon average per meter (or whatever other unit makes sense) that accommodates the variable nature of the earth's shapes. Or that the effect of winds has been accommodated.

I am not sure what there is to agree on. The grapic representing the kiehl - trenberth energy budget is quite self explanatory. The energy budget is as represnted. You can easily see how much has been left out, and how absolutely juvenile the whole thing is but that is it and it is accepted as law by the ipcc and the general climate science community and is the basis for all "accepted" climate models.

If after looking at that graphic and considering how far it is from representing anything like reality you believe something "fishy" is going on, well welcome to the club.

 

[dogtowner]

That's what you might think, but if you are going to model the earth as a flat, with no night time, why would you bother trying to calculate the differences between the amount of energy absorbed along a north/south line.

The model assumes that 1 hour at 400 degrees will produce the same results as 4 hours at 100 degrees.

I am not sure what there is to agree on. The grapic representing the kiehl - trenberth energy budget is quite self explanatory. The energy budget is as represnted. You can easily see how much has been left out, and how absolutely juvenile the whole thing is but that is it and it is accepted as law by the ipcc and the general climate science community and is the basis for all "accepted" climate models.

If after looking at that graphic and considering how far it is from representing anything like reality you believe something "fishy" is going on, well welcome to the club.

well the degrees/hours certainly doesn't work, doesn't take an abacus to figure that out. I'm sure there might be some way to derive a watts per hour on the average sq meter but it would be more than a little complex and one would need to need to see the formula and there seems to be no attempt to do that.

so it seems that there is much to be explained regarding the oversimplification/mischaracterization of the diagram. then if that can be accomplished the greenhouse gas effect that has been a part of the agw theory seems also to be questionable. New peer reviewed research here that demonstrates greenhouse gas effect is way overstated.

 

[palerider]

well the degrees/hours certainly doesn't work, doesn't take an abacus to figure that out. I'm sure there might be some way to derive a watts per hour on the average sq meter but it would be more than a little complex and one would need to need to see the formula and there seems to be no attempt to do that.

so it seems that there is much to be explained regarding the oversimplification/mischaracterization of the diagram. then if that can be accomplished the greenhouse gas effect that has been a part of the agw theory seems also to be questionable. New peer reviewed research here that demonstrates greenhouse gas effect is way overstated.

There is only one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, that is, one gas that can actually absorb and retain heat. That would be dihydrogen monoxide. It's ablility to absorb and retain heat has to do with the fact that it can change phases, and not only change phases it can go from solid to liquid to gas in the open atmosphere. It is the only substance known to man that can perform that little trick.

 

[dogtowner]

There is only one greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, that is, one gas that can actually absorb and retain heat. That would be dihydrogen monoxide. It's ablility to absorb and retain heat has to do with the fact that it can change phases, and not only change phases it can go from solid to liquid to gas in the open atmosphere. It is the only substance known to man that can perform that little trick.

that much I knew

 

[PLC1]

makes sense to me. how many dimensions does the earth exist in in the picture ?
looks like two to me. obviously the earth is not flat. (skip below)

I think that their use of the term "global annual mean" is intended to explain this representation perhaps on the basis that over the course of the year things sort of even out and somehow an average is derived to explain the obvious differences between poles and equator.

I'm not clear if y'all have an agreed upon average per meter (or whatever other unit makes sense) that accommodates the variable nature of the earth's shapes. Or that the effect of winds has been accommodated.

That's how I interpret the graph, but Palerider seems to think that it is showing a flat earth that is constantly receiving the same amount of energy from the sun, and that the formula used to calculate the amount of heat received from the sun is based on a flat earth without day and night that gets the same amount of heat at the poles that it does at the equator.

To me, mean means an average.

 

[Openmind]

That's how I interpret the graph, but Palerider seems to think that it is showing a flat earth that is constantly receiving the same amount of energy from the sun, and that the formula used to calculate the amount of heat received from the sun is based on a flat earth without day and night that gets the same amount of heat at the poles that it does at the equator.

To me, mean means an average.

I am glad to see that you are active in this forum as a poster, if not as a moderator.

Now. . .would you please answer my request, or get Walter to do so.

Thank you.

 

[palerider]

That's how I interpret the graph, but Palerider seems to think that it is showing a flat earth that is constantly receiving the same amount of energy from the sun, and that the formula used to calculate the amount of heat received from the sun is based on a flat earth without day and night that gets the same amount of heat at the poles that it does at the equator.

To me, mean means an average.

It isn't a matter that I "think" it depticts a flat earth or that I "think" that the energy budget depicts a world that doesn't rotate or have night. That is simply what is. The methodology of the energy budget is no secret and most everyone (except you apparently) knows how the energy budget is set up.

As to averages, you miss the point. Again, if you cook turkey 2 hours at 350 degrees or 8 hours at 87.5 degrees, the turkey will be receiving the same amount of energy. The averages are the same while the end result is quite different. kiehl and trenberth seem to think that 24 hour daylight at 1/4 of the actual intensity is the same as reality. It is no more the same than cooking a turkey for 8 hours at 87.5 degrees as opposed to 2 hours at 350.

You are confirming a suspicion I have held regarding most warmers for quite some time. It seems as if you could care less whether kiehl - trenberth or any other climate scientist is actually right, or whether any climate science is correct so long as the leftist agenda moves forward. Climate change is only one more of a long list of means to an end and when the hoax is finally recognized by enough people that even the mainstream press won't perpetuate it further, you will move on to the next means to the leftist end without even a glance over your shoulder at climate change.

 

[PLC1]

It isn't a matter that I "think" it depticts a flat earth or that I "think" that the energy budget depicts a world that doesn't rotate or have night. That is simply what is. The methodology of the energy budget is no secret and most everyone (except you apparently) knows how the energy budget is set up.

As to averages, you miss the point. Again, if you cook turkey 2 hours at 350 degrees or 8 hours at 87.5 degrees, the turkey will be receiving the same amount of energy. The averages are the same while the end result is quite different. kiehl and trenberth seem to think that 24 hour daylight at 1/4 of the actual intensity is the same as reality. It is no more the same than cooking a turkey for 8 hours at 87.5 degrees as opposed to 2 hours at 350.

You are confirming a suspicion I have held regarding most warmers for quite some time. It seems as if you could care less whether kiehl - trenberth or any other climate scientist is actually right, or whether any climate science is correct so long as the leftist agenda moves forward. Climate change is only one more of a long list of means to an end and when the hoax is finally recognized by enough people that even the mainstream press won't perpetuate it further, you will move on to the next means to the leftist end without even a glance over your shoulder at climate change.

So, everyone except me realizes that the energy budget is based on the idea that the Earth doesn't rotate and have night. I'm the only one who thinks that "mean" means an average of heat energy, while the rest of the world is pointing and saying, "Look, look, these guys don't realize that it gets dark at night!"

Moreover, I have no idea how to cook a turkey. OK, that one is correct. I'd have to get some advice from the Mrs. before attempting that one.

And I, like most "warmers", have a left wing agenda to... to.. what is our agenda again?

And this glaringly obvious error, failing to see that it gets dark at night, has escaped every scientific organization in the world, all of them blinded not by the dark of night, but by a common leftist agenda.

I have to admit, after having had many discussions on this topic, that the idea that global warming theory depends on the Earth not experiencing night is a new one on me. I thought I'd heard it all.