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

[palerider]

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.

I didn't call you stupid because you didn't jump in to some conspiracy theory with me. I called you stupid because you apparently still believe that I have been trying to convince you that kiehl - trenberth had the wrong amount of energy reaching the earth when I have told you a half a dozen times that that isn't the case.

The discussion is about how much energy is reaching Earth, according to the diagram you seem to be having such a problem with.

No it isn't. The discussion is about the shape of the earth that the sunlight is reaching. I called you stupid because after 4 or 5 days, you still can't grasp that most basic fact.

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.

It turns a spherical earth into a flat surface and has the whole surface of the earth being illuminated at the same time. Sorry you aren't bright enough to understand that.

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

Because the backradiation claimed in the energy budget is more than twice as large as the amount of energy reaching the surface of the earth from the sun. I never disputed how much energy is coming in from the sun. Your own ignorance of the topic has led you to that conclusion and apparently no matter how many times I explain to you that the discussion is not about the amount of energy coming in from the sun you simply can't escape your own misconception.

 

[PLC1]

I didn't call you stupid because you didn't jump in to some conspiracy theory with me. I called you stupid because you apparently still believe that I have been trying to convince you that kiehl - trenberth had the wrong amount of energy reaching the earth when I have told you a half a dozen times that that isn't the case.



No it isn't. The discussion is about the shape of the earth that the sunlight is reaching. I called you stupid because after 4 or 5 days, you still can't grasp that most basic fact.



It turns a spherical earth into a flat surface and has the whole surface of the earth being illuminated at the same time. Sorry you aren't bright enough to understand that.



Because the backradiation claimed in the energy budget is more than twice as large as the amount of energy reaching the surface of the earth from the sun. I never disputed how much energy is coming in from the sun. Your own ignorance of the topic has led you to that conclusion and apparently no matter how many times I explain to you that the discussion is not about the amount of energy coming in from the sun you simply can't escape your own misconception.

You claim not to have said what you clearly did say, you turn reason totally on its head, then call me names because I don't see things from your point of view.

which is the only way you can continue to espouse your wacky conspiracy theory.

Now, you're not saying that the chart you brought up has the wrong amount of energy coming from the sun? Do I really have to go back through this long thread to show you where you said exactly that? Would it do any good if I did?

 

[palerider]

You claim not to have said what you clearly did say, you turn reason totally on its head, then call me names because I don't see things from your point of view.

Bring forward a quote by me in which I claimed that k-t had used the wrong amount of energy coming in from the sun or had somehow manipulated the solar constant, or admit that you a) can't read or b) are a liar.

which is the only way you can continue to espouse your wacky conspiracy theory.

Calling a discussion about the mathematics of a planetary energy budget a conspiracy theory is no more than an impotent ad hominem on your part.

Now, you're not saying that the chart you brought up has the wrong amount of energy coming from the sun?

I never did. Either you can't read or are a lair. Which is it?

Do I really have to go back through this long thread to show you where you said exactly that? Would it do any good if I did?

In order to prove that you aren't a liar, yes. You have made the claim, now prove it.

 

[PLC1]

Bring forward a quote by me in which I claimed that k-t had used the wrong amount of energy coming in from the sun or had somehow manipulated the solar constant, or admit that you a) can't read or b) are a liar.

Here you go:

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.

According to you, there is 4 times as much energy coming from the sun as that graphic (the one we've discussed ad nauseum) shows.

Now, tell me how I've misinterpreted your words.

 

[palerider]

According to you, there is 4 times as much energy coming from the sun as that graphic (the one we've discussed ad nauseum) shows.

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.

Now, tell me how I've misinterpreted your words.

Yes, you have misinterpted my words. Damn but you are dishonest.

Take a look at the chart again:

How much energy does it show coming in? Looks like 341 to me, how about you? What is the solar constant? Somewhere between 1364 and 1370 depending on the source? What is 341 multiplied by 4? Seems that it is something like 1364? Is that or is that not, 4 times what is being shown on the chart? Did I at any time state that they had the wrong amount of energy coming in from the sun? Of course I didn't and you claimed that I did. I tried repeatedly to explain to you why the actual amount of energy coming in was divided by 4 and you still fail to grasp what you were told and have resorted to bald faced dishonesty in an effort to extricate yourself from an argument that you are not intellectually prepared to engage. Unlike you, I actually can do, and understand the math.

You said:

Now, you're not saying that the chart you brought up has the wrong amount of energy coming from the sun?

Then did I or did I not go to great lengths to try and explain to you what the /4 meant? I told you repeatedly that the /4 wasn't something that was being done to the solar constant. I told you that it was something being done to the surface the energy from the sun was irradiating.

You can't take my words far enough out of context to make yourself appear honest PLC. You lied, and then clearly misrepresented what I said. It's probably best for you to bow out and sneak away before you come out looking worse than you already do.[/quote]

 

[PLC1]

Yes, you have misinterpted my words. Damn but you are dishonest.

Take a look at the chart again:

I have quoted your exact words. In fact, I copied them electronically and pasted them, just to be sure.

Remember, I can't look into your head and figure out just what your latest conspiracy theory numbers might be. I can only go by your words. Now, let's see if you're wiling to clarify:

The chart you keep bringing up, the one that you seem to think clenches the fallacy being promulgated by NASA et. al, with whom you have no disagreement (according to your words, that is, not according to what may or may not be in your head):

has the number representing the incoming energy from the sun wrong

A. Yes
B. No

Perhaps stupid old me will understand what you're trying to say once you make your position clear with a real answer to a yes/no question.

I am not anticipating a clear answer. Now, prove me wrong.

 

[palerider]

I have quoted your exact words. In fact, I copied them electronically and pasted them, just to be sure.

And conveniently failed to mention the very long explanation I went into in which I explained that you could in fact, multiply the amount of energy shown on the graphic by 4 and get the actual solar constant. Anyone who cares to look at post 242 in this thread can readily see exactly how dishonest you actually are.

Remember, I can't look into your head and figure out just what your latest conspiracy theory numbers might be. I can only go by your words. Now, let's see if you're wiling to clarify:

More dishonesty on your part. You didn't have to look in my head to se what I meant, I wrote 7 paragraphs explaining exactly what I meant. And you further lie when you characterize a discussion of the math used to build a model as a conspiracy theory. In fact, I don't beleive any part of your argument to date has been honest.

has the number representing the incoming energy from the sun wrong

A. Yes
B. No

Answer the question yourself. What is the number shown on the graphic? What is the solar constant? Are they the same? Have I, or have I not gone to great lengths to explain the math and why the numbers aren't the same, which is clearly over your head to you in simple terms?

Perhaps stupid old me will understand what you're trying to say once you make your position clear with a real answer to a yes/no question.

I have made it clear. At this time, you seem to be the only one who doesn't get it. I have received IM's from people who aren't math people who understand perfectly what I have been saying.

I am not anticipating a clear answer. Now, prove me wrong.

You have been getting clear answers all along. Either you are to stupid to understand or not willing to give up your faith. You tell me which it is.

 

[PLC1]

And conveniently failed to mention the very long explanation I went into in which I explained that you could in fact, multiply the amount of energy shown on the graphic by 4 and get the actual solar constant. Anyone who cares to look at post 242 in this thread can readily see exactly how dishonest you actually are.



More dishonesty on your part. You didn't have to look in my head to se what I meant, I wrote 7 paragraphs explaining exactly what I meant. And you further lie when you characterize a discussion of the math used to build a model as a conspiracy theory. In fact, I don't beleive any part of your argument to date has been honest.



Answer the question yourself. What is the number shown on the graphic? What is the solar constant? Are they the same? Have I, or have I not gone to great lengths to explain the math and why the numbers aren't the same, which is clearly over your head to you in simple terms?



I have made it clear. At this time, you seem to be the only one who doesn't get it. I have received IM's from people who aren't math people who understand perfectly what I have been saying.



You have been getting clear answers all along. Either you are to stupid to understand or not willing to give up your faith. You tell me which it is.

I am not anticipating a clear answer. Now, prove me wrong.

You don't disappoint.

The number shown on the graphic is not the same as the solar constant. We've been over and over this one. Does that or does it not mean that you think that the number is wrong?

Answer the question yourself. What is the number shown on the graphic? What is the solar constant? Are they the same? Have I, or have I not gone to great lengths to explain the math and why the numbers aren't the same,(followed by more predictable WCT crap. )

So, the numbers are not the same. The solar constant is not the same as the number on the graphic. The solar constant that relies on a flat disk, which is what you say the graphic is about.

Bring forward a quote by me in which I claimed that k-t had used the wrong amount of energy coming in from the sun

And yes, there is 4 times as much energy coming in from the sun as that graphic shows.

How much energy does it show coming in? Looks like 341 to me, how about you?

How much energy does it show coming in? Looks like 341 to me, how about you? What is the solar constant? Somewhere between 1364 and 1370 depending on the source? What is 341 multiplied by 4? Seems that it is something like 1364? Is that or is that not, 4 times what is being shown on the chart? Did I at any time state that they had the wrong amount of energy coming in from the sun? Of course I didn't and you claimed that I did. I tried repeatedly to explain to you why the actual amount of energy coming in was divided by 4 and you still fail to grasp what you were told and have resorted to bald faced dishonesty in an effort to extricate yourself from an argument that you are not intellectually prepared to engage. Unlike you, I actually can do, and understand the math.

No, I do not grasp the math in which you can simultaneously claim that the actual energy from the sun is four times what is on the chart, while saying that you didn't claim that the number was wrong.

Maybe I just am not good enough at doublethink.

OK, that's enough of that.

the chart is wrong because it divided the nuber by 4, but the result is not wrong, it is... Nope. doesn't make sense.

maybe we should leave this one behind and talk about that impossible back radiation

 

[palerider]

The number shown on the graphic is not the same as the solar constant. We've been over and over this one. Does that or does it not mean that you think that the number is wrong?

As I have told you repeatedly, the number on the graphic is the solar constant divided by 4. As I have told you repeatedly and shown you the actual equation by k-t, the number is divided by 4 because they are attempting to show the solar constant striking the entire surface of the earth at once. Flat earth, no night. No, they have not altered the solar constant as I have told you to the point that I am growing sick of telling you. Again, the /4 is not about the amount of energy coming in from the sun, it is about the shape of the earth represented in the model.

So, the numbers are not the same. The solar constant is not the same as the number on the graphic. The solar constant that relies on a flat disk, which is what you say the graphic is about.

You still don't get it. Maybe you aren't just "playing" stupid. Maybe you simply aren't capable of understanding the math at even the most basic level.

maybe we should leave this one behind and talk about that impossible back radiation

No, we shouldn't. If you are unable to grasp this basic stuff, you certainly won't be able to get vectors and how they relate to the interaction between EM fields because that is all math. Demonstrate that you understand the basics and I am prepared to continue but I won't waste my time trying to explain the more complicated aspects of this energy budget when you show no sign of understanding even the basics.

 

[PLC1]

As I have told you repeatedly, the number on the graphic is the solar constant divided by 4. As I have told you repeatedly and shown you the actual equation by k-t, the number is divided by 4 because they are attempting to show the solar constant striking the entire surface of the earth at once. Flat earth, no night. No, they have not altered the solar constant as I have told you to the point that I am growing sick of telling you. Again, the /4 is not about the amount of energy coming in from the sun, it is about the shape of the earth represented in the model.



You still don't get it. Maybe you aren't just "playing" stupid. Maybe you simply aren't capable of understanding the math at even the most basic level.




No, we shouldn't. If you are unable to grasp this basic stuff, you certainly won't be able to get vectors and how they relate to the interaction between EM fields because that is all math. Demonstrate that you understand the basics and I am prepared to continue but I won't waste my time trying to explain the more complicated aspects of this energy budget when you show no sign of understanding even the basics.

Yes, the graphic has 1/4 of the solar constant.

Bring forward a quote by me in which I claimed that k-t had used the wrong amount of energy coming in from the sun

Now, is that figure, which is 1/4 of the solar constant, the wrong figure?

If so, then you said that the k-t had used the wrong amount of energy coming in from the sun.

Which you later said you had not claimed.

Further, we have already discussed, over and over, just how that number was arrived at.

Now, let's move on. This is getting tiresome.

 

[palerider]

Now, is that figure, which is 1/4 of the solar constant, the wrong figure?

It is not the wrong figure if you want to represent an amount of energy equal to the solar constant less energy lost due to the albedo irradiating the entire surface of the planet at once. It is not the wrong figure if you want to represent the earth as a flat disk.

Now, let's move on. This is getting tiresome.

No, lets not.

Till you demonstrate that you understand what the left side of this equation means, there is no point in continuing because it just gets more complicated. If you don't understand the basics, you can't possibly understand how vectors and the Stefan - Boltzman law relates to the interactions between EM fields. If you really don't understand the math as I have explained, you will understand even less regarding the fallacy of backradiaion. If you are playing stupid, I am not inclined to humor you further.

 

[PLC1]

It is not the wrong figure if you want to represent an amount of energy equal to the solar constant less energy lost due to the albedo irradiating the entire surface of the planet at once. It is not the wrong figure if you want to represent the earth as a flat disk.



No, lets not.

Till you demonstrate that you understand what the left side of this equation means, there is no point in continuing because it just gets more complicated. If you don't understand the basics, you can't possibly understand how vectors and the Stefan - Boltzman law relates to the interactions between EM fields. If you really don't understand the math as I have explained, you will understand even less regarding the fallacy of backradiaion. If you are playing stupid, I am not inclined to humor you further.

nor am I.

It has been a lot of years since I've worked with the math you equation depends on.

I do understand the post made above (yes, it was, too, and I'm not going back to bring it up again) explaining how the division by 4 represents the Earth not as a flat disk, but as a sphere.

So, I guess your wacky conspiracy theory is above me after all.,

Have fun disputing every scientific organization on Earth with your ideas.

 

[palerider]

If you didn't understand the math, why did you pretend that you did? And calling something so far over your head a conspriacy theory in a lame attempt to somehow try to save face is just dumb. Since you obviously don't understand the math, you, as I already pointed out, have based your postion on your political leaning rather than any actual knowledge of the topic. You are completely unable to disprove a single thing I have said which makes your claims of conspiracy theory pure bunk.

By the way, you never explained how that equation represents the earth as a sphere. You never even got close. In fact, you never even addressed the equation. You stated that it did but by your own admission, you have no idea whether or not it does or doesn't. You can't explain the equation, you can only say what you wish it means.

As to disputing every scientific organization on earth, don't make me laugh. I am only disputing the political heads of every scientific organization on earth, in many cases, not scientists at all. The vast bulk of the membership of those organizations are on my side. Those who depend on grant money are the only ones promoting AGW and the number of scientists who depend on grant money is a very tiny minority.

 

[PLC1]

If you didn't understand the math, why did you pretend that you did? And calling something so far over your head a conspriacy theory in a lame attempt to somehow try to save face is just dumb. Since you obviously don't understand the math, you, as I already pointed out, have based your postion on your political leaning rather than any actual knowledge of the topic. You are completely unable to disprove a single thing I have said which makes your claims of conspiracy theory pure bunk.

That's not what makes it a conspiracy theory. Discounting anything published by anyone supported by government is one thing that makes in so. Asserting that you have something that the rest of don't understand is yet another. Asserting that the interest of the heads of organizations is giving governments what they want in order to keep grant money coming is yet another.

By the way, you never explained how that equation represents the earth as a sphere. You never even got close. In fact, you never even addressed the equation. You stated that it did but by your own admission, you have no idea whether or not it does or doesn't. You can't explain the equation, you can only say what you wish it means.

No, i didn't address your equation. I did, however, address the issue of solar radiation and the Earth as a sphere.

As to disputing every scientific organization on earth, don't make me laugh. I am only disputing the political heads of every scientific organization on earth, in many cases, not scientists at all. The vast bulk of the membership of those organizations are on my side. Those who depend on grant money are the only ones promoting AGW and the number of scientists who depend on grant money is a very tiny minority.

No, that simply isn't so. It's not non scientist heads of organizations who are publishing papers about climate change.

Even if it were, that's a lot of people who are promoting AGW in order to get grant money for their organizations, way more than could be in on a real conspiracy without blowing it.

But, if you think you have an equation that disproves AGW, by all means, post it whenever you want. In fact, why not send it to the climatologists who are toiling away under the supervision of the heads of organizations who are in on the conspiracy? Maybe they can get the truth out somehow.

 

[palerider]

That's not what makes it a conspiracy theory. Discounting anything published by anyone supported by government is one thing that makes in so. Asserting that you have something that the rest of don't understand is yet another. Asserting that the interest of the heads of organizations is giving governments what they want in order to keep grant money coming is yet another.

So you simply believe everything that is published by people funded by the government? You take everything the government tells you at face value? Is that really how you operate?

And I am not asserting that I have something that the rest of you don't understand. As I am sure that you haven't noticed, there are a large number of very high powered scientists who don't buy into the AGW hoax. Among them are literally hundreds of PhDs and quite a few nobel prize winners. My position is based on their published work, not something I have worked out on a dry erase board in my basement.

You don't believe that the source of money provided to do research influences the findings of the research? Does that mean that you would readily accept research that I present to you that was funded by organizations that you would call skeptical?

No, i didn't address your equation. I did, however, address the issue of solar radiation and the Earth as a sphere.

Not my equation. kiehl - trenberth's equation and by association, your equation. Unless you address the equation by which they have the entire solar constant spread out across the whole face of the earth at once and explain how you believe it means somethnig else, you have not addressed the issue. The equation is the issue.

Even if it were, that's a lot of people who are promoting AGW in order to get grant money for their organizations, way more than could be in on a real conspiracy without blowing it.

Maybe you should take a look back in history at the number of people who were promoting eugenics in order to get grant money. Before WWII eugenics was the big thing. And conspiracy theory is your term, not mine. This is all done out in the open and simply takes advantage of the fears and lack of education prevelant in the general population. Your use of terms like conspiracy theory are no more than impotent smears against me on your part.

But, if you think you have an equation that disproves AGW, by all means, post it whenever you want.

As I said, when you demonstrate that you can understand the first, most simple equation I gave you, then we can continue. It would be pointless to move on to more complex issues when you can't even understand the basics.

In fact, why not send it to the climatologists who are toiling away under the supervision of the heads of organizations who are in on the conspiracy? Maybe they can get the truth out somehow.

They are well aware of the work of the skeptics. Along one path lies actual scientific research and advancement, along the other path lies literally billions upon billions in research money.