Old Rocks
Diamond Member
I see. All the satellites went dead in 2016? Silly Billy, your ass must really be sore from all the nonsense you are pulled out of it. LOL
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.
Old Fraud is feeling a bit butt chapped from all the spankings... LOLI see. All the satellites went dead in 2016? Silly Billy, your ass must really be sore from all the nonsense you are pulled out of it. LOL
It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!
The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.
The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.
To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.
mods, kindly remove this comment, and mine as well, as being irrelevant to the topic and hence off subject.Mods: Please move this thread to the "Conspiracy Theory" section.
Old Fraud is feeling a bit butt chapped from all the spankings... LOLI see. All the satellites went dead in 2016? Silly Billy, your ass must really be sore from all the nonsense you are pulled out of it. LOL
Hows it feel to be on the lying side of history.. It's finally coming back to ride your ass.. And it didn't bring any KY jelly..
It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!
The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.
The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.
To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.
"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."
Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...
Source
It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!
The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.
The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.
To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.
"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."
Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...
Source
I think it is hilarious that you latch on to a comment like this with so much gusto.
You fail to realize the implications. Solar imput to the surface is less than 200w yet the surface radiates at roughly 400w. Where does the extra 200w come from? Hahahaha.
View attachment 151722
The divergence from reality is massive.. The hypothesis is therefore falsified.
It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!
The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.
The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.
To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.
"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."
Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...
Source
I think it is hilarious that you latch on to a comment like this with so much gusto.
You fail to realize the implications. Solar imput to the surface is less than 200w yet the surface radiates at roughly 400w. Where does the extra 200w come from? Hahahaha.
You don't think the oceans store energy to be released at some time in the future?...and does the surface radiate 400wm/2 uniformly?....or do some places radiate more than others resulting in a homogenized, "average" being used as if it were a global figure like the average temperature?
You don't think the oceans store energy to be released at some time in the future?.
It absurd that the whole premise of CAGW as ‘settled’ science is based on a sensitivity with +/- 50% uncertainty. On top of this is even more uncertainty from the fabricated RCP scenarios. Even worse is the low end of the presumed range isn’t low enough to accommodate the maximum effect as limited by the laws of physics!
The actual limits are readily calculated. The upper limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at 255K (about 0.3C per W/m^2) and the lower limit is the sensitivity of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (about 0.2C per W/m^2). Interestingly enough, the sensitivity of a BB at 255K is almost exactly the same as the sensitivity of a gray body at 288K with an emissivity of 0.61, where the emissivity is the ratio between the emissions at 255K and the emissions at 288K.
The physics clearly supports a sensitivity as large as 0.3C per W/m^2, yet nobody in the warmest camp can articulate what physics enables the sensitivity to be as much as 4 times larger. They always invoke positive feedback, which not only isn’t physics, it assumes an implicit source of Joules powering the gain which is the source of the extra energy they claim arises to increase the temperature by as much as 1.2C per W/m^2.
To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions. 1 W/m^2 of the 6 W/m^2 is replaced by the W/m^2 of forcing said to affect the increase. The other 5 W/m^2 have no identifiable origin except for the presumed, and missing, power supply. The same analysis shows that even the IPCC’s lower limit is beyond bogus.
"To illustrate the abject absurdity of the IPCC’s upper limit, a 1.2C increase in the surface temperature increases its emissions by more than 6 W/m^2. If emissions are not replenished with new energy, the surface must cool until total forcing == total emissions."
Just Wow.... Took a bit to run this through SB and the equations but the good Dr is right on the money.... The IPCC forgings are total fantasy...
Source
I think it is hilarious that you latch on to a comment like this with so much gusto.
You fail to realize the implications. Solar imput to the surface is less than 200w yet the surface radiates at roughly 400w. Where does the extra 200w come from? Hahahaha.
The point is...every spot on the surface is radiating more energy than it is getting from solar input. Where is the extra energy coming from?
I have repeatedly tried to explain it to you but to no avail.
And no, geothermal energy is not the answer.
What I find interesting is the fact that the energy budget doesn't take into account near surface water vapor. much of the problem with those calculations are the serious error bars when it comes to near surface atmospheric content and its roll.
As SSDD points out to you over and over again the tools used to determine the flow of energy must be cooled to -80 deg F to work properly and even then your not sure of the focal point of the readings. Being fooled by your tools is very common problem in climastrology..
Hell, Ian misses the boat right off the bat by accepting that the earth is receiving only 341wm2 from the sun...that flat earth model puts you off the track of realty from the start.