Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Toddsterpatriot]

what errors were his?

The part where the Sun is radiating at -18C.

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18....

never said that the sun was radiating at -18...

You did. Post #135.


Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect


...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees

Wrong. The graphic doesn't mention the temperature of the Sun. Or the temperature of the radiation.
You took the info from the graphic and misinterpreted it to say the Sun was radiating at -18C.

That error is on you and you alone.


please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees...

Of the Earth's surface, not of the Sun.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C? you've never actually commented. does it convert to the -18C?

And, just for my edification, didn't the image from the universities show that? So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD. perhaps you could explain it to him and me.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C?

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.

didn't the image from the universities show that?

No, the image did not show the incoming solar radiation equated the source to -18C.

So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.
Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures? hmmmmmmmm

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

He did. Right here.


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures?

He did, and came up with a temperature of -18C for the Sun. How'd that work out?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

never said that the sun was radiating at -18...

You did. Post #135.


Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect


...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees

Wrong. The graphic doesn't mention the temperature of the Sun. Or the temperature of the radiation.
You took the info from the graphic and misinterpreted it to say the Sun was radiating at -18C.

That error is on you and you alone.


please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees...

Of the Earth's surface, not of the Sun.

And the lies and misrepresentation just never stops with you does it? Look at the first paragraph I wrote...

Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....

Incoming solar radiation...I qualified whet we were talking about...did I then, anywhere change the topic to the sun and the radiation emitting from its surface?...of course I didn't...but honesty isn't your thing...is it...

see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....

That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

That's where you took the info from the image and went horribly wrong.

did I then, anywhere change the topic to the sun and the radiation emitting from its surface?...

You said the radiation equates to the temperature of the 2 radiators but you weren't talking about the Sun? LOL!

That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

it comes from the sun though correct? the incoming radiation I mean.

Yes, the incoming radiation from the Sun comes from the Sun.

well you said:
That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun? Why'd you go down that rat hole there? hmmmmm seems you merely like to disrupt the message board. what a proud disrupt-er you are.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

 

[jc456]

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18....

never said that the sun was radiating at -18...

You did. Post #135.


Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect


...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees

Wrong. The graphic doesn't mention the temperature of the Sun. Or the temperature of the radiation.
You took the info from the graphic and misinterpreted it to say the Sun was radiating at -18C.

That error is on you and you alone.


please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees...

Of the Earth's surface, not of the Sun.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C? you've never actually commented. does it convert to the -18C?

And, just for my edification, didn't the image from the universities show that? So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD. perhaps you could explain it to him and me.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C?

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.

didn't the image from the universities show that?

No, the image did not show the incoming solar radiation equated the source to -18C.

So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.
Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures? hmmmmmmmm

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

He did. Right here.


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures?

He did, and came up with a temperature of -18C for the Sun. How'd that work out?

Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?..

did you read that? hmmmmmm dude have some fking dignity at least.

How is radiating up from the surface coming from the sun? I'm sorry, but dude that is just a flat out lie with your input there to show it.

 

[jc456]

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18....

never said that the sun was radiating at -18...

You did. Post #135.


Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect


...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees

Wrong. The graphic doesn't mention the temperature of the Sun. Or the temperature of the radiation.
You took the info from the graphic and misinterpreted it to say the Sun was radiating at -18C.

That error is on you and you alone.


please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees...

Of the Earth's surface, not of the Sun.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C? you've never actually commented. does it convert to the -18C?

And, just for my edification, didn't the image from the universities show that? So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD. perhaps you could explain it to him and me.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C?

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.

didn't the image from the universities show that?

No, the image did not show the incoming solar radiation equated the source to -18C.

So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.
Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures? hmmmmmmmm

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

He did. Right here.


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures?

He did, and came up with a temperature of -18C for the Sun. How'd that work out?

He did, and came up with a temperature of -18C for the Sun. How'd that work out?

that wasn't my question. why can't you answer the question. so, please tell me is it possible to convert the w/m2 into a temperature? yes or no.

And if one can convert w/m2 into temperature, perhaps you could tell us all what the temperature of 239w/m2 is.

 

[jc456]

And the lies and misrepresentation just never stops with you does it? Look at the first paragraph I wrote...

Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....

Incoming solar radiation...I qualified whet we were talking about...did I then, anywhere change the topic to the sun and the radiation emitting from its surface?...of course I didn't...but honesty isn't your thing...is it...

see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....

That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

That's where you took the info from the image and went horribly wrong.

did I then, anywhere change the topic to the sun and the radiation emitting from its surface?...

You said the radiation equates to the temperature of the 2 radiators but you weren't talking about the Sun? LOL!

That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

it comes from the sun though correct? the incoming radiation I mean.

Yes, the incoming radiation from the Sun comes from the Sun.

well you said:
That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun? Why'd you go down that rat hole there? hmmmmm seems you merely like to disrupt the message board. what a proud disrupt-er you are.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

never said that the sun was radiating at -18...

You did. Post #135.


Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect


...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees

Wrong. The graphic doesn't mention the temperature of the Sun. Or the temperature of the radiation.
You took the info from the graphic and misinterpreted it to say the Sun was radiating at -18C.

That error is on you and you alone.


please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees...

Of the Earth's surface, not of the Sun.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C? you've never actually commented. does it convert to the -18C?

And, just for my edification, didn't the image from the universities show that? So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD. perhaps you could explain it to him and me.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C?

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.

didn't the image from the universities show that?

No, the image did not show the incoming solar radiation equated the source to -18C.

So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.
Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures? hmmmmmmmm

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

He did. Right here.


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures?

He did, and came up with a temperature of -18C for the Sun. How'd that work out?

Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?..

did you read that? hmmmmmm dude have some fking dignity at least.

How is radiating up from the surface coming from the sun? I'm sorry, but dude that is just a flat out lie with your input there to show it.

Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?..
did you read that?

No one disputes the Earth surface temp would be -18C.
Everyone disputes that the Sun's temp would be -18C.

How is radiating up from the surface coming from the sun?

Read further.....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere.......so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees

Those are radiating down, not up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....

That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

That's where you took the info from the image and went horribly wrong.

did I then, anywhere change the topic to the sun and the radiation emitting from its surface?...

You said the radiation equates to the temperature of the 2 radiators but you weren't talking about the Sun? LOL!

That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

it comes from the sun though correct? the incoming radiation I mean.

Yes, the incoming radiation from the Sun comes from the Sun.

well you said:
That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun? Why'd you go down that rat hole there? hmmmmm seems you merely like to disrupt the message board. what a proud disrupt-er you are.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

 

[SSDD]

what errors were his?

The part where the Sun is radiating at -18C.

I never said that the sun was radiating at -18...more lies on your part...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees....do you never tire of lying?...but do feel free to point out any post i made where I said that the sun itself was radiating at -18....

never said that the sun was radiating at -18...

You did. Post #135.


Look at the damned graph....or any graph of the greenhouse effect...see the incoming solar radiation..that's one of your radiators...239.7wm^2....please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....you are aware of that...aren't you?....


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

I am starting to think that you can't read a simple equation either...and I am betting that since you seem to realize that the sun is hot...that the climate science claim of the surface of the earth radiating at -18 degrees is just one more bit of bullshit upon which the greenhouse effect is based...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect


...I said the graphic showed the incoming radiation from the sun at -18 degrees

Wrong. The graphic doesn't mention the temperature of the Sun. Or the temperature of the radiation.
You took the info from the graphic and misinterpreted it to say the Sun was radiating at -18C.

That error is on you and you alone.


please tell me that you are aware that 239.7 wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees...

Of the Earth's surface, not of the Sun.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C? you've never actually commented. does it convert to the -18C?

And, just for my edification, didn't the image from the universities show that? So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD. perhaps you could explain it to him and me.

they still don't know where the numbers are coming from....

I know. It is amusing. I like all the flaming going on as well. they have no fking idea what they're even talking about. It's like they got an alternate post from you. I'm still not sure where they're coming from and neither do they.

That is a predictable response from warmers...show them that they are wrong and they bury the evidence as quickly and with as much bullshit as they can muster...they get right to the task of getting off topic and starting as large a flame war as they can manage...same shit different day...

 

[SSDD]

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.

If you have an object radiating at 239.7 wm2...what is its effective radiating temperature?

No, the image did not show the incoming solar radiation equated the source to -18C.

It did, however give a radiating wm2, and for anyone who actually knows how to use the SB equation, they gave enough information to determine radiating temperature...anyone who actually knows..that is...not you apparently.

So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C.[/QUOTE]

 

[jc456]

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C? you've never actually commented. does it convert to the -18C?

And, just for my edification, didn't the image from the universities show that? So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD. perhaps you could explain it to him and me.

well does 239.7wm^2 equate to -18C?

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.

didn't the image from the universities show that?

No, the image did not show the incoming solar radiation equated the source to -18C.

So I'm still trying to understand how you're attempt to pin all of this bad information from the university on SSDD.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C.

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

No, the incoming solar radiation does not equate the source to -18C.
Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures? hmmmmmmmm

He's the only one who said the 2 incoming sources, the Sun and the atmosphere, somehow both had a temperature of -18C, or that their energy had a temperature of -18C

no he didn't.

He did. Right here.


Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees....so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees and suddenly you have a temperature of 29.85 degrees...

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

Are you saying there is no way to convert the w/m2 into temperatures?

He did, and came up with a temperature of -18C for the Sun. How'd that work out?

Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?..

did you read that? hmmmmmm dude have some fking dignity at least.

How is radiating up from the surface coming from the sun? I'm sorry, but dude that is just a flat out lie with your input there to show it.

Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?..
did you read that?

No one disputes the Earth surface temp would be -18C.
Everyone disputes that the Sun's temp would be -18C.

How is radiating up from the surface coming from the sun?

Read further.....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere.......so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees

Those are radiating down, not up.

No one disputes the Earth surface temp would be -18C.
Everyone disputes that the Sun's temp would be -18C

Great, again, not a statement that was ever made by SSDD. so so far you are stating you lie about what he said.

Read further.....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere.......so they combine the radiation from these two radiators which are radiating at -18 degrees

I did, the university used two 239.7w/m2 sources in their equation from two sources from their own image, one can only conclude they were referencing one source from the incoming black arrow of incoming solar radiation and one source from the red arrow from the atmosphere. it was the only two sources pointing toward the surface at 239.7w/m2. you don't disagree with that right?

Again, from their image.

It's why SSDD stated what he stated in his original question on the validity of the equation that is being used to teach with. It was rather a very simple/ basic question he posed. You all just acted like jack monkeys in an attempt to disrupt his thread.

 

[jc456]

That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

it comes from the sun though correct? the incoming radiation I mean.

Yes, the incoming radiation from the Sun comes from the Sun.

well you said:
That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun? Why'd you go down that rat hole there? hmmmmm seems you merely like to disrupt the message board. what a proud disrupt-er you are.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

dude, I clicked the link, so what? It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, the incoming radiation from the Sun comes from the Sun.

well you said:
That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun? Why'd you go down that rat hole there? hmmmmm seems you merely like to disrupt the message board. what a proud disrupt-er you are.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

dude, I clicked the link, so what? It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.

Jack monkeys...LOL...never heard that one before...colorful description that perfectly matches the image of them I have in my head...thanks..

Glad I wasn't drinking an adult beverage...would have blown it right out of my nose....

 

[jc456]

well you said:
That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun? Why'd you go down that rat hole there? hmmmmm seems you merely like to disrupt the message board. what a proud disrupt-er you are.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

dude, I clicked the link, so what? It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.

Jack monkeys...LOL...never heard that one before...colorful description that perfectly matches the image of them I have in my head...thanks..

you bet. again the dude is void of any technical ability to converse with. one liner PeeWee Hermanite phrases.

I will back your posts about that university information as long as I have to. I can't stand people who can't understand logic.

 

[SSDD]

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

dude, I clicked the link, so what? It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.

Jack monkeys...LOL...never heard that one before...colorful description that perfectly matches the image of them I have in my head...thanks..

you bet. again the dude is void of any technical ability to converse with. one liner PeeWee Hermanite phrases.

I will back your posts about that university information as long as I have to. I can't stand people who can't understand logic.

No need...anyone who matters recognizes his bullshit for what it is...anyone who doesn't really doesn't matter...they have their first class ticket on the AGW crazy train and are too busy stroking each others delicate little egos to notice the BRIDGE OUT AHEAD!!! sign the train just passed

 

[jc456]

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

dude, I clicked the link, so what? It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.

Jack monkeys...LOL...never heard that one before...colorful description that perfectly matches the image of them I have in my head...thanks..

you bet. again the dude is void of any technical ability to converse with. one liner PeeWee Hermanite phrases.

I will back your posts about that university information as long as I have to. I can't stand people who can't understand logic.

No need...anyone who matters recognizes his bullshit for what it is...anyone who doesn't really doesn't matter...they have their first class ticket on the AGW crazy train and are too busy stroking each others delicate little egos to notice the BRIDGE OUT AHEAD!!! sign the train just passed

it is my enjoyment.

 

[SSDD]

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

dude, I clicked the link, so what? It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.

Jack monkeys...LOL...never heard that one before...colorful description that perfectly matches the image of them I have in my head...thanks..

you bet. again the dude is void of any technical ability to converse with. one liner PeeWee Hermanite phrases.

I will back your posts about that university information as long as I have to. I can't stand people who can't understand logic.

No need...anyone who matters recognizes his bullshit for what it is...anyone who doesn't really doesn't matter...they have their first class ticket on the AGW crazy train and are too busy stroking each others delicate little egos to notice the BRIDGE OUT AHEAD!!! sign the train just passed

it is my enjoyment.

Enjoy on Garth....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, the incoming radiation from the Sun comes from the Sun.

well you said:
That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun? Why'd you go down that rat hole there? hmmmmm seems you merely like to disrupt the message board. what a proud disrupt-er you are.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

dude, I clicked the link, so what? It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.

It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2

Post #135

Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2

you just haven't

DERP!

 

[SSDD]

well you said:
That incoming solar radiation doesn't tell you anything about the temperature of the Sun.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun? Why'd you go down that rat hole there? hmmmmm seems you merely like to disrupt the message board. what a proud disrupt-er you are.

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

dude, I clicked the link, so what? It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.

It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2

Post #135

Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2

you just haven't

DERP!

How many times do I need to apologize for thinking that you were bright enough to differentiate between the amount of radiation incoming from the sun and radiation, and the amount of radiation leaving the sun's surface...who would have thought that anyone would be stupid enough two think the two values would be equal...again...my apologies for giving you credit for being as smart as an average junior high student...I won't make the mistake again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd like to know when SSDD mentioned anything about the temperature of the sun?

Questions.....RE: The Greenhouse Effect

DERP!

so pull out the abstract where he did that?

Click the link. I already posted what he wrote, multiple times.
Post #807, Post #811, Post #821.

dude, I clicked the link, so what? It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2. you just haven't. you quote his quote or you failed and I'll call you a liar again.

It still is the university information and you still haven't quoted his quote where he says the sun radiates at 239.7w/m2

Post #135

Now see the energy radiating up from the surface?....239.7 from the sun...and 239.7 from the atmosphere....two radiators...both radiating ...239.7wm^2

you just haven't

DERP!

How many times do I need to apologize for thinking that you were bright enough to differentiate between the amount of radiation incoming from the sun and radiation, and the amount of radiation leaving the sun's surface...who would have thought that anyone would be stupid enough two think the two values would be equal...again...my apologies for giving you credit for being as smart as an average junior high student...I won't make the mistake again.

differentiate between the amount of radiation incoming from the sun and radiation, and the amount of radiation leaving the sun's surface...

When you claimed the Sun was radiating 239.7w/m^2, you were wrong?
When you claimed the Sun was radiating at -18C, you were wrong?

who would have thought that anyone would be stupid enough two think the two values would be equal..

Besides you? LOL!

 

[SSDD]

When you claimed the Sun was radiating 239.7w/m^2, you were wrong?

I never made that claim..that is you being unable to read and comprehend what is being written...sorry I the board doesn't have a crayon function to allow us to communicate at your level...

[When you claimed the Sun was radiating at -18C, you were wrong?

Again.. I never made the claim...just more bullshit from the toddster...misunderstanding..misinterpreting...missing the boat...