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

[palerider]

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!"

You are one of the few that I have met, who claims that the science isn't over his or her head who is unaware of the parameters of the model. It isn't a secret and literally volumes have been written on the topic.

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.

Are you unable to intuit that cooking a turkey for 2 hours at 350 degrees will net a different result than cooking it for 8 hours at 87.5 degrees even though the bird will absorb the same amount of energy?

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

Greater government control over industry and wealth redistribution. If you aren't in favor of those things, perhaps you might reconsider your stand on AGW since that is its sole purpose. Well that and decent paychecks for climatologists who historically haven't been very well paid.

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.

No, it hasn't escaped anyone. As I said, it isn't a secret and never has been. Only those people who really haven't put any time at all into research are still unaware of the parameters of the kiehl - trenberth energy budget.

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.

Then perhaps some actual research on the topic is in order on your part. Maybe it is such common knowledge that folks you previously discussed the topic with simply assumed that you knew and you simply accepted the weak rationalizations offered up as an explanation. It isn't as if it is hard to find information on the topic.

 

[PLC1]

You are one of the few that I have met, who claims that the science isn't over his or her head who is unaware of the parameters of the model. It isn't a secret and literally volumes have been written on the topic.



Then perhaps some actual research on the topic is in order on your part. Maybe it is such common knowledge that folks you previously discussed the topic with simply assumed that you knew and you simply accepted the weak rationalizations offered up as an explanation. It isn't as if it is hard to find information on the topic.

Well, OK, then, let's see what has been said on the subject. I'll start by putting "global warming + flat earth" in the search window:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...1_global-warming-hoax-warming-alarmists-claim
Here's the only hit that actually has to do with a flat earth:

Global warming is a hoax, just like this 'round Earth' business

October 28, 2011
Like commentator Richard Haddad, who dismisses global warming because there is no "unanimity" among scientists on the issue ("Get past alarmism on global warming," Oct. 26), we of the Flat Earth Society feel the same about the lack of unanimity among scientists supporting the round-Earth theory.

Plus, there are several hits similar to this one, that don't actually mention a flat earth:

SUMMIT COUNTY — A long-running propaganda campaign to cast doubt on climate science has apparently worked to some degree.
On the one hand, there is near unanimous agreement among climate scientists that human-caused global warming is happening. But George Mason University researchers recently discovered that there is still a high degree of public confusion about the level of agreement among researchers.

Let's try "global warming + no night" and see...

A list of late night jokes about global warming, several explanations as to what the "warmers" are claiming, one blog countering "alarmism", but nothing to say that the theory depends on there not being a night side of Earth.

I must have missed something, no doubt.

 

[dogtowner]

Well, OK, then, let's see what has been said on the subject. I'll start by putting "global warming + flat earth" in the search window:
Here's the only hit that actually has to do with a flat earth:





Plus, there are several hits similar to this one, that don't actually mention a flat earth:




Let's try "global warming + no night" and see...

A list of late night jokes about global warming, several explanations as to what the "warmers" are claiming, one blog countering "alarmism", but nothing to say that the theory depends on there not being a night side of Earth.

I must have missed something, no doubt.

"kiehl and trenberth wrong" yields lots of hits a few of which seem to represent a store of some kind.

random example
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/28/sense-and-sensitivity-2/

 

[palerider]

Well, OK, then, let's see what has been said on the subject. I'll start by putting "global warming + flat earth" in the search window:

Here's the only hit that actually has to do with a flat earth:

If your research skills are really that poor, it comes as no surprise to me that you had no idea.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/icing-the-hype/the_flat_earth

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/...h’s-energy-budget-diagram”-contain-a-paradox/

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

 

[palerider]

If your research skills are really that poor, it comes as no surprise to me that you had no idea.

Here are the first 3 serious discussions of the topic I came across.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/icing-the-hype/the_flat_earth

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/26/does-the-trenberth-et-al-“earth’s-energy-budget-diagram”-contain-a-paradox/

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/The_Model_Atmosphere.pdf

 

[palerider]

PLC1 perhaps this might help you to grasp what kiehl - trenberth have done. Look again at the graphic of thier energy budget. Incoming solar radiation is 341 watts per square meter. Now go to google or yahoo, or whatever your search engine is and look up "solar constant" you will find that the solar constant is 1367 watts per meter squared. Now divide the solar constant by 4. (that is P/4 as I have been telling you) Oddly enough, the number you get is almost identical to the number of watts per square meter that kiehl - trenberth state is coming in from the sun on their budget.

Sorry guy, but this will, I suppose, remain a mystery to you if you don't grasp the math. Why divide the incoming solar radiation into 4 if you are not modelling the earth as a flat plane being constantly irradiated by sunlight at 1/4 of the actual amount?

 

[GenSeneca]

Why divide the incoming solar radiation into 4 if you are not modelling the earth as a flat plane being constantly irradiated by sunlight at 1/4 of the actual amount?

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.​

​

That's from the LINK provided by Dogtowner

 

[palerider]

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.​

​

That's from the LINK provided by Dogtowner

Right. The kiehl - trenberth energy budget represents the earth as a flat disk. Dividing the incoming energy by 4 however, does not result in a model that is anything like reality. The turkey example I gave PLC makes the point. 2 hours of cooking at 350 won't net you the same result as 4 hours of cooking at 87.5 even though the turkey is exposed to the same amount of energy in either case. In modelling, if you don't represent reality, you don't get reality.

 

[PLC1]

claims that the amount of solar energy striking the earth is 174 petawatts. Palerider says that figure is off by a factor of four.

Trenberth's claim:

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

So, let's see just how much energy actually strikes the Earth. Obviously, if Trenberth's equations are based on a flat Earth where it is never night, then his figures have to be way off.
http://thatsolarguy.com/faq/Energy from the Sun.htm
Here's a site giving the actual number:

The Earth receives 174 petawatts (PW) of incoming solar radiation (insolation) at the upper atmosphere.

Well that seems to be terribly controversial.

How much does this site say we get?

Our Earth receives 174 petawatts of incoming solar radiation at any given time.

Gosh, he's fooled a lot of people, hasn't he? You'd think that someone would give the actual figure, which, according to Palerider, would have to be 696 petawatts.

Is there some site out there that supports the amount of solar radiation claimed?

 

[palerider]

claims that the amount of solar energy striking the earth is 174 petawatts. Palerider says that figure is off by a factor of four.

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? I provided you with the accepted solar constant. Look it up on your favorite search engine and you will get more than 6 million hits, large numbers of them from respected academic sources. There is little debate, if any, over the solar constant. It is expressed in terms of watts per square meter. I showed you that kiehl - trenberth have divided the solar constant by 4 thus making a flat disk out of the earth for the purpose of their model and eliminating night time.

Now you want to multipl the solar constant by the number of square meters of surface area on the earth. OK. We can start by you taking all of the values in the kiehl - trenberth energy budget and multiplying them by the total number of square meters on the face of the earth. Then you will have a graphic that simply expresses total energy across the face of the earth. When you get finished with that, you will still have the same flawed energy budget that violates the laws of physics that you had when the numbers were expressed in terms of watts per square meters. You will still be expressing the incoming energy in the form of P/4 which still leaves you with a flat earth receiving 1/4 of the actual amount of energy from the sun across its entire surface 24 hours a day.

Gosh, he's fooled a lot of people, hasn't he? You'd think that someone would give the actual figure, which, according to Palerider, would have to be 696 petawatts.

Is there some site out there that supports the amount of solar radiation claimed?

How many more terms are you going to throw in in an effort to confuse the discussion? You did the same with your silly number 1 - 4 choices. The incoming energy is expressed in terms of watts per square meter, not total energy across the face of the earth. If you want to make the numbers huge and ungainly, then we can do that by all means. Using your preferred large ungainly numbers, how many watts per square meter does the energy budget require to be radiated back from the atmosphere to the surface of the earth in the form of backradiation?

What I told you, and have demonstrated is that the kiehl - trenberth energy budget expresses energy in the form of P/4 because they represent the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and is being irradiated 24 hours a day by 1/4 of the amount of energy actually coming in. Like I said, if the math is over your head, you will never be able to understand this. If you are unable to understand the signifigance of P/4 which is the most basic mathematical concept in this whole discussion, then I am not surprised in the least that you have been duped and travel blythely through your days without the slightest clue, or suspicion that you have been duped. If you can't grasp what P/4 means then there is no way for you to understand the more complicated aspects of this such as the corruption of SB laws. or vector calculus, or the physics that govern EM field radiation.

Now, back to that 333 watts per square meter of backradiation that kiehl - trenberth claim is radiating from the cooler atmosphere back to the warmer earth? Can you explain it or not?

By the way, providing one of the most dishonest of the propaganda sites out there, ie. SS as a source hardly helps your argument. Those guys even attacked the likes of Pielkie Sr and proved beyond any doubt that they are no more than mouthpieces for a small clique of climate pseudoscientists and have no interest at all in anything like getting to the truth of the matter. In addition, they are very well known even among warmist circles for editing and deleting any comments that seriously challenge their proclamations. It is interesting that in the space of just a few posts, you have referenced the two most notorious propaganda sites to be found on the web. It says a great deal about why you might believe what you do and why you are so completely unable to discuss this topic in a rational manner. If your sources are not rational, your arguments can't be rational.

Now back to that 333 watts per square meter in backradiation. Without a rational explanation for that, you have no basis for climate alarmism. Can you or can't you explain it?

 

[palerider]

PLC1

After your last post in which you attempted to alter the entire energy budget from the watts per square meter to watts across the entire earth, your fundamental intellectual dishonesty was brought into high relief. I gave you the solar constant which isn't a number that is much disputed. 1367 watts per square meter.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0038092X82902560

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1978/JC083iC08p04003.shtml

http://itacanet.org/eng/elec/solar/sun2.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=hd...g#v=onepage&q="solar constant" "1367"&f=false

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/solar+constant

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?id=21439

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. Multiplying it by the number of square meters on the earth, or dividing it by the number of nanometers on the face of the earth doesn't alter its value just like expressing the temperatures of cooking a turkey in terms of joules per second, or even joules per picosecond doesn't alter the amount of energy the turkey is exposed to.

I showed you that the value kiehl - trenberth used for incoming solar radiation is 1/4 of the solar constant. You have indisputable, inarguable proof that their energy budget depicts a world receiving 1/4 of the amount of energy that is actually coming in. That you can't grasp the mathematical implications that fact has on the subsequent model (flat earth, no night, 1/4 of actual incoming energy) is not my problem and if you have no interest in even trying to grasp the facts, that also is not my problem.

I have better things to do than to follow you down some primrose path squashing every objection that you might possibly be able to find to reach a point where you can no longer wiggle away only to see you promptly disappear and reappear on another thread spewing the same spew that I had already squashed. If intellectual honesty isn't your thing, fine. I can live with that and you won't be the first intellectually dishonest person I have encountered so I won't think any worse of you than I do of any other.

If you can't accept the undeniable fact that the kiehl - trenberth energy budget has divided the actual incoming energy from the sun by 4, then I suppose we are through with this discussion. If you can accept the fact that they divided the incoming energy from the sun by 4 even if you can't grasp the implications, then I am prepared to continue. The next question is about that 333 watts per square meter of backradiation. Can you or can you not explain it?

 

[PLC1]

Palerider had me going for a while.

On the one hand, the solar constant is, actually, 1,367 watts/square meter. Indisputable.

On the other hand, it is somewhat difficult to believe that someone posting on an internet forum under a pseudonym (I know, I'm doing the same thing. I'm just not trying to dispute NASA) actually found a basic error that escaped said organization, along with the other scientific organizations.

all of them, throughout the world, some funded by governments (and therefore suspect, according to some), others privately funded.

So, I did a little research, and looked up the term "solar constant." This is what I found:

The solar constant, a measure of flux density, is the amount of incoming solar electromagnetic radiation per unit area that would be incident on a plane perpendicular to the rays, at a distance of one astronomical unit (AU) (roughly the mean distance from the Sun to the Earth). When solar irradiance is measured on the outer surface of Earth's atmosphere,[1] the measurements can be adjusted using the inverse square law to infer the magnitude of solar irradiance at one AU and deduce the solar constant.[

that would be incident on a plane, i.e., a flat surface.

Such as a flat Earth.

So, it appears that it is not NASA who thinks the Earth is flat, is it?

 

[dogtowner]

Palerider had me going for a while.

On the one hand, the solar constant is, actually, 1,367 watts/square meter. Indisputable.

On the other hand, it is somewhat difficult to believe that someone posting on an internet forum under a pseudonym (I know, I'm doing the same thing. I'm just not trying to dispute NASA) actually found a basic error that escaped said organization, along with the other scientific organizations.

all of them, throughout the world, some funded by governments (and therefore suspect, according to some), others privately funded.

So, I did a little research, and looked up the term "solar constant." This is what I found:



that would be incident on a plane, i.e., a flat surface.

Such as a flat Earth.

So, it appears that it is not NASA who thinks the Earth is flat, is it?

near as I can tell, the issue is the "divided by 4"

 

[PLC1]

near as I can tell, the issue is the "divided by 4"

That's the way I see it also. Divide the solar constant by 4, and you have the figure used in the graphic above. Since the solar constant is what would be constant on a plane perpendicular to the sun's rays, and since the Earth is not a plane, it follows that the actual radiation reaching the Earth would be much less than the solar constant.

 

[dogtowner]

That's the way I see it also. Divide the solar constant by 4, and you have the figure used in the graphic above. Since the solar constant is what would be constant on a plane perpendicular to the sun's rays, and since the Earth is not a plane, it follows that the actual radiation reaching the Earth would be much less than the solar constant.

in looking at Pale's links I don't think thats right, particularly see the third one. at best it suggests that you might divide it in half as half the earth is dark at any given moment. but it (the 1376) seems to accommodate the variations from the elliptical path around the sun etc.