And POOF, it was gone....

[jc456]

And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...

Troll, you are not telling the truth. Your crap doesn't work anymore.

poof it was gone

 

[jc456]

Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.

And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...

I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...

It didn't say that. Anywhere.

so again, are you saying one can't convert w/m2 into temperature?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.

And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...

I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...

It didn't say that. Anywhere.

so again, are you saying one can't convert w/m2 into temperature?

You should do it for the Sun.
Post your results.

 

[jc456]

Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.

And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...

I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...

It didn't say that. Anywhere.

so again, are you saying one can't convert w/m2 into temperature?

You should do it for the Sun.
Post your results.

I like it when people like you give up and can't answer a direct question. I'll take that win thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.

And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...

I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...

It didn't say that. Anywhere.

so again, are you saying one can't convert w/m2 into temperature?

You should do it for the Sun.
Post your results.

I like it when people like you give up and can't answer a direct question. I'll take that win thanks.

I haven't given up pointing out SSDD's errors. You can take that for a win all you want. LOL!

 

[skookerasbil]

Pruitt in at EPA........now the "poof" is official.

May the dismantling begin s0ns!! A great, great day for America, and especially American businessmen!!

******* WINNING!!!!

 

[Billy_Bob]

You give his "flaw" too much credence.

You think? Maybe that is because it doesn't matter. For, whichever flaw in that simplistic model he may have found - actual or merely invented - it doesn't change the argument. A model can be infinitely tweaked to ensure it more closely aligns with the aspects of reality it seeks to depict. So, no matter the truth value of the asserted flaw, the conclusion - GHE theory is irreparably flawed and thus invalid - doesn't follow.

It all reminds me of Rick Scott issuing a decree in 2015 banning the term "climate change" from Florida officials' language. Another State, also under severe threat from climate-change related changes, I forgot which, ceased collecting climate-change related data altogether. In all cases, the denialists were all giddy, humming "the witch is gone", nothing more to worry about. Of course, down the road they (as we all), and their offspring, will reap the rewards in increased warming and reduced preparedness.

All the while, as you correctly noted, the earth's average temperature should be -18°C, given the radiative flux it receives from the sun. Without the GHE, there's no way to explain the 15°C on average we are actually seeing. Once that is acknowledged, along with the rising CO2 concentrations, all else falls into place, inescapably.

And yet, all we're seeing and hearing is, "The witch is gone!", nothing more to worry about, and the warmers' underhanded designs on our pocketbooks and control of our lives are thwarted. They even go so far to declare their fealty towards the poor, not usually a group whose interests would rank high up on their priority list, and their inability to make a living in a society heading for a post-carbon future. Cheers!

"A model can be infinitely tweaked to ensure it more closely aligns with the aspects of reality it seeks to depict."

If you have to "tweek" the model, your understanding of the process is flawed and the model will have NO PREDICTIVE POWER. This is also why modeling should NEVER be used to make policy decisions.

You morons want to destroy nations and world economies using FANTASY. Model outputs are not empirical evidence of any kind.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...

I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...

It didn't say that. Anywhere.

so again, are you saying one can't convert w/m2 into temperature?

You should do it for the Sun.
Post your results.

I like it when people like you give up and can't answer a direct question. I'll take that win thanks.

I haven't given up pointing out SSDD's errors. You can take that for a win all you want. LOL!

Errors?

LOL.. That is all you have..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.

And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...

I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...

It didn't say that. Anywhere.

Your incapable of the math? He even gave you the damn equation..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...

It didn't say that. Anywhere.

so again, are you saying one can't convert w/m2 into temperature?

You should do it for the Sun.
Post your results.

I like it when people like you give up and can't answer a direct question. I'll take that win thanks.

I haven't given up pointing out SSDD's errors. You can take that for a win all you want. LOL!

Errors?

LOL.. That is all you have..

Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.

And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...

I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...

It didn't say that. Anywhere.

Your incapable of the math? He even gave you the damn equation..

He even gave you the damn equation..

He gave me an equation that shows the Sun radiates at -18C? DERP!

 

[Wuwei]

Todd, You have infinite patience with these derps. It's like discussing Immanuel Kant with three year olds.

 

[jc456]

so again, are you saying one can't convert w/m2 into temperature?

You should do it for the Sun.
Post your results.

I like it when people like you give up and can't answer a direct question. I'll take that win thanks.

I haven't given up pointing out SSDD's errors. You can take that for a win all you want. LOL!

Errors?

LOL.. That is all you have..

Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.

Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser

 

[jc456]

Yes he did say the sun was radiating -18C (Amazingly stupid) but my impression was that he backed away from that claim much later. As I saw it, he had nothing left except the usual smart photons thing. And that made this thread pointless.

And the lies just keep on coming...that is how you warmer wackos are....I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...but that this point...even I see that expecting you to read with anything like comprehension is too much to ask...you have lied, misrepresented....misquoted...and generally proven that you don't have the first clue...

I said that the graphic showed the incoming solar radiation at -18 degrees...

It didn't say that. Anywhere.

Your incapable of the math? He even gave you the damn equation..

He even gave you the damn equation..

He gave me an equation that shows the Sun radiates at -18C? DERP!

He did? Hmm prove that or are you going back from our earlier exchange?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should do it for the Sun.
Post your results.

I like it when people like you give up and can't answer a direct question. I'll take that win thanks.

I haven't given up pointing out SSDD's errors. You can take that for a win all you want. LOL!

Errors?

LOL.. That is all you have..

Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.

Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser

Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.

Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser

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

No clue. Moron.

 

[skookerasbil]

lol........more AGW k00k losing...............

Science
Possible Trump science advisor says global warming is a 'non-problem' not worth investing in
Robert Ferris | @RobertoFerris
Thursday, 16 Feb 2017 | 3:25 PM ET

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/possible-trump-science-advisor-global-warming-is-not-worth-investing-in.html


Now that Pruitt is confirmed, the bumpy cucumbers will by flying out of the White House real soon!!


poof

 

[Olde Europe]

Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.

Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser

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

No clue. Moron.

You are merely trolling without adding anything to the debate. Your quote - "239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood. Yes, it is a somewhat sloppy shorthand, it also doesn't reflect that the sun's radiation (shortwave) is different from the radiation of an object at -18°C (longwave), but that's all not worth having a days-long pissing contest over it. Except, of course, if a pissing contest is what you are bent on having.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.

Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser

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

No clue. Moron.

You are merely trolling without adding anything to the debate. Your quote - "239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood. Yes, it is a somewhat sloppy shorthand, it also doesn't reflect that the sun's radiation (shortwave) is different from the radiation of an object at -18°C (longwave), but that's all not worth having a days-long pissing contest over it. Except, of course, if a pissing contest is what you are bent on having.

Your quote - "239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood.

That's SSDD saying that. And it's clear he doesn't understand, because he tried to equate the 2 inputs, solar and atmospheric, to 2 ice cubes warming a nearby object above the temperature of the ice cubes.

If he understood that doubling the flux results in a higher surface temperature, he wouldn't have commented.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.

Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser

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

No clue. Moron.

You are merely trolling without adding anything to the debate. Your quote - "239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood. Yes, it is a somewhat sloppy shorthand, it also doesn't reflect that the sun's radiation (shortwave) is different from the radiation of an object at -18°C (longwave), but that's all not worth having a days-long pissing contest over it. Except, of course, if a pissing contest is what you are bent on having.

Old Europe...meet toddster...toddster....meet Old Europe....this is the level at which toddster communicates...he rarely adds anything to the conversation...he doesn't think...he misinterprets, looks for punctuation errors...and in general...trolls....if you expect more from toddster, I am afraid you will be disappointed...he doesn't engage in conversation...one liners in line with the conversation of a 5 year old is about as good as it gets with toddster.

 

[SSDD]

Yes, his claim that the Sun radiates at -18C is an error.

Still talking that lie. No class and no backup! Loser

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

No clue. Moron.

You are merely trolling without adding anything to the debate. Your quote - "239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood. Yes, it is a somewhat sloppy shorthand, it also doesn't reflect that the sun's radiation (shortwave) is different from the radiation of an object at -18°C (longwave), but that's all not worth having a days-long pissing contest over it. Except, of course, if a pissing contest is what you are bent on having.

Your quote - "239.7wm^2 equates to a radiating temperature of -18 degrees" indicates that the difference between the sun's temperature and the radiative flux arriving at the earth's surface is well understood.

That's SSDD saying that. And it's clear he doesn't understand, because he tried to equate the 2 inputs, solar and atmospheric, to 2 ice cubes warming a nearby object above the temperature of the ice cubes.

If he understood that doubling the flux results in a higher surface temperature, he wouldn't have commented.

Doubling the flux doesn't result in a higher temperature.....you can prove it with any two radiating objects....including ice cubes....Using the SB equation, you subtract the fluxes to get the radiating temperature of two objects...you do not add...