Hottest day globally in the satellite record!

[jc456]

Of course I agree, because it was totally correct. The difference between heat in and heat out is what changes temperature.

It's not difficult. A bright first grader could grasp it, but you can't, and that makes you look like a spastic retard. The other deniers here wish you would stop embarrassing them.

so less LWR is less heat out so how is it possible?

How is it possible that you believe that LWR is the only radiation that creates heat from the sun?

If one man recieves 4000 dollars a month income, and spends 4500 dollars, he has a negative income. If another man recieves 3500 dollars a month, but spends only 3000 dollars, then that man has a positive income. If the earth recieves a miniscule less TSI, but retains a siignificant amount more of that heat, then the earth will warm. Simple enough for a first grader to understand.

Because you've never proven any other source.

 

[Crick]

Your proof.

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is atP1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read athttps://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.