Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you want to think that some AGW hypothesis is wrong so be it. But it cannot be used as a counterexample against back radiation. Any two objects will both radiate energy to each other according to Stefans fourth power temperature law.The hotspot would not necessarily be proof of AGW...but its failure to appear is proof that the AGW hypothesis is wrong.
You are taking the cartoon too literally. It is a diagrammatic sketch of global average energy flow; not intended to be a depiction or the actual earth. If you don't like the 165W number, what amount of global average radiation does your source of information provide?Got any actual proof of that? Best I can tell it is little more than a wild assed guess found in the trenberth cartoon which, by the way, portrays earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate has no day or night and exists in a perpetual state of weak twilight...that my friend, is the world the GCM's are based upon. How much does that world resemble the world you live in?
And yet, it is the basis for the global climate models, and the AGW hypothesis...perhaps that is why both have failed so miserably.
You have to go to the top of the atmosphere to find the beginning of the problem...trenberth's cartoon claims 341.3 wm2 incoming from the sun...the actual incoming radiation from the sun is more like 1370 wm2.... trenberth divides that number by 4 and pretends that by doing so, he has an average incoming solar radiation to the surface of the earth.....he does not take into account that the earth is curved and that during daylight hours, the solar energy reaching the surface gradually increases till just after noon and then decreases till dark....he does not take into account that the earth is a curved surface and that more energy reaches the equator and decreasing amounts reach the surface as you move towards the poles...he does not take clouds into account nor the difference between land, water, ice, prairie, forest, desert....etc.
His cartoon which bears almost no resemblance to the actual world is the basis for both the AGW hypothesis...and the global climate models...again, maybe that is why both have failed so miserably.
And yet, it is the basis for the global climate models, and the AGW hypothesis...perhaps that is why both have failed so miserably.
You have to go to the top of the atmosphere to find the beginning of the problem...trenberth's cartoon claims 341.3 wm2 incoming from the sun...the actual incoming radiation from the sun is more like 1370 wm2.... trenberth divides that number by 4 and pretends that by doing so, he has an average incoming solar radiation to the surface of the earth.....he does not take into account that the earth is curved and that during daylight hours, the solar energy reaching the surface gradually increases till just after noon and then decreases till dark....he does not take into account that the earth is a curved surface and that more energy reaches the equator and decreasing amounts reach the surface as you move towards the poles...he does not take clouds into account nor the difference between land, water, ice, prairie, forest, desert....etc.
His cartoon which bears almost no resemblance to the actual world is the basis for both the AGW hypothesis...and the global climate models...again, maybe that is why both have failed so miserably.
Actually he does take that into account. Think global average. You would reduce the sun's energy by exactly half simply because half the earth is in the dark. I have looked at the calculus which shows that if you use Lambert's cosine law of the diminishing energy toward the periphery of a sphere, the actual energy hitting the bright side of the earth is diminished by exactly a half again. The total global average is 1/4 of the energy at noon on the equator.
When you are calculating the total energy hitting the earth you don't need to take into account the difference between land, water, ice, etc. The landscape plays a role on how much short wave energy is reflected back to space. The cartoon has energy flow arrows illustrating that. Take a look at it again with those ideas in mind.
The 165W is certainly a guesstamate. But it could not be in error by more than 20%.
You lost track of the conversation. I was being very liberal with the 165W number so skeptics wouldn't deny any arguments on that account.20% MOE where we're talking about "Settled Science" around a .01% change in atmospheric composition.
I'm afraid you might be right. These guys can take any small phrase out of context and blow it up into a sad argument that they seem to be proud of.I'm afraid you might be a little too subtle there.
God I love the reverse psychology by yourself and others here. What supposed magic are the supposed skeptics presenting? We aren't claiming magic heat! Why don't you just provide where excess heat comes from.You can't reason with Global Warming deniers, they believe in magic, not reason. Even in the face of the entire world body of nations agreeing and the entire world body of PH.D's agreeing Global Warming is real and accelerating, the denier cult clings to its warm fuzzy "NOTHING'S WRONG, EVERYTHING'S FINE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, I LIKE BURNING WOOD".
They are a sad lot, but you can't help them. They are like Flat Earthers, or Birthers, or the people that thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the Earth. It takes people like this, who are scared to death of any change, a while to finally accept reality.
The Denier Cult is no different. They'll cling to their delusion for as long as they can. Like a child with a warm blanky.
The Earth isn't warming right? lol. I bet you are stupid enough to not believe in the El Nino either? Am I right?God I love the reverse psychology by yourself and others here. What supposed magic are the supposed skeptics presenting? We aren't claiming magic heat! Why don't you just provide where excess heat comes from.You can't reason with Global Warming deniers, they believe in magic, not reason. Even in the face of the entire world body of nations agreeing and the entire world body of PH.D's agreeing Global Warming is real and accelerating, the denier cult clings to its warm fuzzy "NOTHING'S WRONG, EVERYTHING'S FINE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, I LIKE BURNING WOOD".
They are a sad lot, but you can't help them. They are like Flat Earthers, or Birthers, or the people that thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the Earth. It takes people like this, who are scared to death of any change, a while to finally accept reality.
The Denier Cult is no different. They'll cling to their delusion for as long as they can. Like a child with a warm blanky.
Something we can agree on. Now just provide the source for excess heat you claim. In my house, I call that the fireplace or oven.The 165 watt number is a global daily average. In your house your furnace goes on and off intermittently yet the temperature of your house stays close to the setting on your thermostat. Same thing with energy input from the sun.Ever think that perhaps your numbers are off? Climate science has proven itself perfectly capable, time after time of fooling itself with instrumentation...Your 165 incoming from the sun is directly from trenberth's cartoon which assumes a flat earth with no day and no night but a constant weak twilight 24 hours a day...I would suggest that that cartoon is about as close to point zero as one could get to the beginning of the error cascade that has landed climate science where it is right now....and you are still quoting it? Geez Ian....wake up and smell the bullshit that you are standing neck deep in right now
The earth warms and cools daily, warming when the sun is out and cools as the earth rotates through the night. So where's our supposed magic?The Earth isn't warming right? lol. I bet you are stupid enough to not believe in the El Nino either? Am I right?God I love the reverse psychology by yourself and others here. What supposed magic are the supposed skeptics presenting? We aren't claiming magic heat! Why don't you just provide where excess heat comes from.You can't reason with Global Warming deniers, they believe in magic, not reason. Even in the face of the entire world body of nations agreeing and the entire world body of PH.D's agreeing Global Warming is real and accelerating, the denier cult clings to its warm fuzzy "NOTHING'S WRONG, EVERYTHING'S FINE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, I LIKE BURNING WOOD".
They are a sad lot, but you can't help them. They are like Flat Earthers, or Birthers, or the people that thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the Earth. It takes people like this, who are scared to death of any change, a while to finally accept reality.
The Denier Cult is no different. They'll cling to their delusion for as long as they can. Like a child with a warm blanky.
By the way, El Niño is caused by ocean currents!The Earth isn't warming right? lol. I bet you are stupid enough to not believe in the El Nino either? Am I right?God I love the reverse psychology by yourself and others here. What supposed magic are the supposed skeptics presenting? We aren't claiming magic heat! Why don't you just provide where excess heat comes from.You can't reason with Global Warming deniers, they believe in magic, not reason. Even in the face of the entire world body of nations agreeing and the entire world body of PH.D's agreeing Global Warming is real and accelerating, the denier cult clings to its warm fuzzy "NOTHING'S WRONG, EVERYTHING'S FINE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, I LIKE BURNING WOOD".
They are a sad lot, but you can't help them. They are like Flat Earthers, or Birthers, or the people that thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the Earth. It takes people like this, who are scared to death of any change, a while to finally accept reality.
The Denier Cult is no different. They'll cling to their delusion for as long as they can. Like a child with a warm blanky.
You need to explain how the earth can sustain such a large heat loss.Something we can agree on. Now just provide the source for excess heat you claim. In my house, I call that the fireplace or oven.
The guy on the message boardScore:
Nations of the world + 10,000 PH.D's around the world
vs some guy on a message board.
Hmm, who could possibly be right?
So, 80 degrees on a thermometer while on a hood of a car it may be well over 100 degrees. But global warming thermometers will only show 80 degrees. Why?You need to explain how the earth can sustain such a large heat loss.Something we can agree on. Now just provide the source for excess heat you claim. In my house, I call that the fireplace or oven.
How do you explain that the earth is absorbing 165W +/- 20% at the same time the earth is radiating 400W +/- 20% of IR. I'm purposefully using very loose inarguable numbers so you will see that there is a still a major disconnect. If you can explain that to yourself, you will come a long way toward understanding climate as understood by all scientists, warmers or not.
