Let the Whistle Blowing Begin....

[skookerasbil]

Translation on all this banter?

Nobody knows shit about shit in terms of what is going on in the environment.....a consensus in the science community btw. The warmists are always talking about a "consensus" but that comes from their select "climate change" community of scientists = relatively few. Tens of thousands of scientists worldwide call bs!! But what would they know, the dummies?

 

[SSDD]

Energy flux absorbed by the Earth = Radiation emitted by the Earth
239.7 W/m2 = constant x T4

To solve this equation, all we need to do is divide the emitted radiation (239.7 watts per square meter) by the constant (5.67 x 10-8) and take the fourth root of the result. Dividing we obtain 42.3 x 10-8. We'll take the fourth root on a calculator, but to check it's a good idea to estimate the result by taking the square root of 50, which should be just about 7 and taking the square root of 7 which should be around 2.5. The fourth root of 10 to the eighth power is 100. Hence, the answer should be a number around 2.5 x 100 or 250. The calculated result is 255. Remember that all results obtained from the Stefan_Boltzmann Law and other radiation laws are expressed in degrees Kelvin, so this is 255 K (-18 °C, 0 °F):

T = 255 K

The figure below illustrates how we derived this energy balance.

This effective temperature of 255 K is the temperature the Earth's Surface would have if it didn't have an atmosphere. It would be awfully cold! In reality, the Earth's surface temperature is closer to 288 K (15 °C, 59 °F). This difference of 33 K is the magnitude of the greenhouse effect. Before we go into more details about what this greenhouse effect is, let's look at Venus and Mars, our closest neighbours and calculate their effective temperatures.

ATM S 211 - Notes
Anyone interested can go to the site at the link.

OK...now you have accounted for the energy coming here from the sun...239.7 wm2 coming in from the sun which is absorbed by the surface....and 239.7 wm2 radiating out...now we move to the next step... So you have a radiator radiating 239.7 up...the earth...and a radiator radiating 239.7 down....according to all of thermodynamics.....the combined output and emitting temperature of those two objects will be somewhere between the temperature of the warmest...and the temperature of the lowest...it is easily demonstrable in any modestly equipped lab or by various thermodynamic formulae.....tell me rocks...what is the temperature somewhere in between one radiator radiating at -18 and another radiator radiating at -18? Any idea?

So is that how climate pseudo science works?...not ho but HELL NO...they add the two outputs together rather than subtract them and end up with an output of almost 30C....two radiators radiating at -18 degrees combining to produce an output 48 degrees warmer than either of the radiators....care to show me anywhere in thermodynamics where that bit of magic is possible?

 

[Wuwei]

OK...now you have accounted for the energy coming here from the sun...239.7 wm2 coming in from the sun which is absorbed by the surface....and 239.7 wm2 radiating out...now we move to the next step... So you have a radiator radiating 239.7 up...the earth...and a radiator radiating 239.7 down....according to all of thermodynamics.....the combined output and emitting temperature of those two objects will be somewhere between the temperature of the warmest...and the temperature of the lowest...it is easily demonstrable in any modestly equipped lab or by various thermodynamic formulae.....tell me rocks...what is the temperature somewhere in between one radiator radiating at -18 and another radiator radiating at -18? Any idea?

You have cross posted this idiocy at least twice.

If you want to assume a specific power density (239.7 W/m2) and use the S-B equation to calculate the temperature, you are actually calculating a temperature that provides an outgoing radiation from a surface. The sun's short wave radiation hitting the earth would correspond to an earth temperature of -18C only if you do not assume anything else, such as an atmosphere.

Equilibrium requires that the input from the sun is balanced by the output of the earth. So the calculated -18C is the temperature the earth would be if there were no atmosphere at all.

The basic flaw is to think that the outgoing LW radiation from the -18C surface of an airless planet has anything to do with a computation involving the GHE.

 

[SSDD]

If you want to assume a specific power density (239.7 W/m2) and use the S-B equation to calculate the temperature, you are actually calculating a temperature that provides an outgoing radiation from a surface. The sun's short wave radiation hitting the earth would correspond to an earth temperature of -18C only if you do not assume anything else, such as an atmosphere.

Equilibrium requires that the input from the sun is balanced by the output of the earth. So the calculated -18C is the temperature the earth would be if there were no atmosphere at all.

Just how stupid are you really wuwei?....see this graphic..it is the one rocks posted...the one that I responded to...see the text in the box at the bottom of the picture?...see where it says clearly....assuming no atmosphere?....radiation in...radiation out...no atmosphere

see this graphic...see right there in the middle of the graphic on the right side....ATMOSPHERE...that is because that graphic is modeling the greenhouse effect with the atmosphere...note that the 239.7 wm2 remains unchanged...they just add in another 239.7 wm2 from the atmosphere....then using the Stefan Boltzman equation...they ADD the two radiation outputs together...and then calculate a radiating temperature of 303K....using the SB equation, when you have two radiators, you subtract the two which gives you a radiating temperature somewhere in the middle of the two radiators..you don't add them together to get a radiating temperature that is higher then either....are you really this far behind the curve?...got to admit, for a while there, you had me fooled...no longer...

The basic flaw is to think that the outgoing LW radiation from the -18C surface of an airless planet has anything to do with a computation involving the GHE.

No..there are three basic flaws...and both are yours...the first one is not recognizing that the graphic clearly denotes the earth's atmosphere...and the second is that using the SB equation, they added the output of the two radiators together to get a radiating output when they were supposed to subtract and get a temperature somewhere between the two...not a temperature higher than either...and the third basic flaw is that you believed the bullshit of the greenhouse effect in the first place...

You know...I copied some of your comments and ran them by a MSc in applied mathematics...he got a big old bellylaugh...so don't fret over being so far behind the curve here...you are still bringing sunshine into peoples lives...laughter is a much needed commodity in the world and if you can make people laugh like that...then you are doing a real service......even if you can't manage to understand a simple graph and grasp very simple equations...

 

[Wuwei]

blah blah

Sorry guy. At least two people explained the graph to you, but you didn't understand the science and you thought the the graph showed that two ice cubes could warm something up. Also you thought the sun was radiating at 18C. We straightened you out on your misunderstandings. You're welcome.

 

[SSDD]

blah blah

Sorry guy. At least two people explained the graph to you, but you didn't understand the science and you thought the the graph showed that two ice cubes could warm something up. Also you thought the sun was radiating at 18C. We straightened you out on your misunderstandings. You're welcome.

Yep...and you guys revealed that you don't have a clue....

And now wuwei...I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees...in fact, I never thought that any part of those graphics were correct.. They did, however say that for the purpose of the greenhouse effect model, the earth was absorbing enough radiation from the sun to raise its temperature to -18 degrees...not my claim.. the claim of the model...all of it was the claim of the model...I was merely pointing out what the model said which after all this it became painfully clear that you couldn't work it out for yourself...

 

[Wuwei]

.I never thought the sun was radiating at -18 degrees

You said the sun radiated at 18C.

.in fact, I never thought that any part of those graphics were correct.. They did, however say that for the purpose of the greenhouse effect model, the earth was absorbing enough radiation from the sun to raise its temperature to -18 degrees.

The graph with one arrow up and one arrow down wasn't for the purpose of a GHE model because there was no GHGs in that model.

.I was merely pointing out what the model said which after all this it became painfully clear that you couldn't work it out for yourself.

You didn't understand the science behind the diagram with the atmosphere and four arrows. Several of us straightened you out on that.

You were pointing out with a total misunderstanding that adding the radiation of two ice cubes in the S-B equatioon warmed the system. That was painfully poor understanding of the equation. Also you thought the sun was radiating at 18C. You said that many times.

 

[RollingThunder]

I would imagine that this is only the beginning of a torrent of evidence that is quickly percolating to the surface with regard to the sham climate science has become. Climate gate gave us a peek behind the curtain...It probably won't be long before the whole damned curtain gets torn down and we all get to see the depth of the scam that has been perpetrated on us.

So go ahead all you first class seat holders on the AGW crazy train....lets see you, once again, attempt to defend the indefensible.

A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.

I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment.

Climate scientists versus climate data

BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

NOAA Whistleblower reveals ‘Pausebuster’ scandal

David Rose in the Mail on Sunday reports that John J Bateshas revealed a host of questionable practices committed by NOAA scientists as they rushed through the ‘Pausebuster’ paper.

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015

NOAA Whistleblower reveals ‘Pausebuster’ scandal

First NOAA Whistleblower

Heat’s On At NOAA As “High Level Whistle Blower” Exposes Data Fraud, “Scientific Integrity Breaches”

“Irrefutable evidence”

The latest revelation, according to Online Mail, comes from “impeccable” NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates, who has shown “irrefutable evidence” that an NOAA paper showing accelerating global warming was rushed to be published just before the Paris Conference in 2015, and was “based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data“. The paper became to be known as the “Pausebuster” and was central in spurring the 2015 Paris Treaty.

Central African data made up entirely

On another matter, the NOAA has just come under massive fire as climate science skeptic Tony Heller presented at his realclimatescience blog strong evidence that the government agency manipulated December 2016 data in order to make it “red hot” in Central Africa, “with record heat“. However, the problem is that there are no measurement stations whatsoever located in the vast region, and so the NOAA simply made up and filled in the hot data.

Heller notes that full-surface temperature measurement by satellites in fact show that “the NOAA’s record hot regions in Africa were actually close to normal“.

- See more at: NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. "Fake and vulgar" climate news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

The usual braindead fraudulent drivel from the denier cult nutjobs and propaganda pushers, based only on their own stupidity, ignorance and gullility.

This nonsense has already been debunked in detail many places....here's some more...

Climate Change, Science, NOAA Falsely Maligned by Tabloid Spin
(excerpts)
As a result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the planet is warming. Those who deny this fact have pointed to a supposed “pause” in warming to justify opposition to climate action. In 2015, a study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl was published in Science that flatly refuted the idea of a “pause.” It is one of many. But its high profile made it a target for attack.

On Saturday, a feature in the UK’s Mail on Sunday by David Rose makes outrageous claims that were already disproven as the paper version hit stands, and that he has already had to, in part, correct. Rose, who has a history of inaccurate reporting, spins a scandal out of a letter by a former NOAA employee published on a climate change denial blog. The letter makes accusations of wrongdoing in the methodology and data archiving procedures used in the study. These accusations have already been shown to be faulty. Even if they were true, the implications have been blown out of proportion by Rose.

Rebuttals were published in record time, as within minutes there was a tweet describing the story as “so wrong its hard to know where to start”:

● John Abraham provides context in the Guardian, and points out the many factors Rose fails to address that, when considered, completely undercut his allegations of misconduct.

● Zeke Hausfather, in a fact check, discusses the various lines of evidence that support Karl’s findings. Hausfather published a study in 2016 that confirmed Karl’s findings that the planet has continued to warm, confirming there was never any real “pause.”

● Scott Johnson at Ars Technica spoke with NOAA insiders, and explains how tensions between the science and engineering side of things caused conflict between Karl, who wanted the handling of data to reflect the many sources of the data, and Bates, who advocated for using just one approach that could handle data from many different sources, but sometimes added years to the process.

● Peter Thorne at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, who unlike the letter’s author actually worked on the Karl paper, identifies several key aspects of the allegations that are a “mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”

● Victor Venema of the WMO discusses both the specifics of the data sets as well as some lighthearted context to help understand the “reporting” done by the Mail’s David Rose.

● Ten climate envoys and ministers involved with the Paris Agreement said there was no truth to Rose’s claim that this study influenced their decisions.

● In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

(Read more at site)

 

[SSDD]

I would imagine that this is only the beginning of a torrent of evidence that is quickly percolating to the surface with regard to the sham climate science has become. Climate gate gave us a peek behind the curtain...It probably won't be long before the whole damned curtain gets torn down and we all get to see the depth of the scam that has been perpetrated on us.

So go ahead all you first class seat holders on the AGW crazy train....lets see you, once again, attempt to defend the indefensible.

A look behind the curtain at NOAA’s climate data center.

I read with great irony recently that scientists are “frantically copying U.S. Climate data, fearing it might vanish under Trump” (e.g., Washington Post 13 December 2016). As a climate scientist formerly responsible for NOAA’s climate archive, the most critical issue in archival of climate data is actually scientists who are unwilling to formally archive and document their data. I spent the last decade cajoling climate scientists to archive their data and fully document the datasets. I established a climate data records program that was awarded a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal in 2014 for visionary work in the acquisition, production, and preservation of climate data records (CDRs), which accurately describe the Earth’s changing environment.

Climate scientists versus climate data

BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

NOAA Whistleblower reveals ‘Pausebuster’ scandal

David Rose in the Mail on Sunday reports that John J Bateshas revealed a host of questionable practices committed by NOAA scientists as they rushed through the ‘Pausebuster’ paper.

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015

NOAA Whistleblower reveals ‘Pausebuster’ scandal

First NOAA Whistleblower

Heat’s On At NOAA As “High Level Whistle Blower” Exposes Data Fraud, “Scientific Integrity Breaches”

“Irrefutable evidence”

The latest revelation, according to Online Mail, comes from “impeccable” NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates, who has shown “irrefutable evidence” that an NOAA paper showing accelerating global warming was rushed to be published just before the Paris Conference in 2015, and was “based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data“. The paper became to be known as the “Pausebuster” and was central in spurring the 2015 Paris Treaty.

Central African data made up entirely

On another matter, the NOAA has just come under massive fire as climate science skeptic Tony Heller presented at his realclimatescience blog strong evidence that the government agency manipulated December 2016 data in order to make it “red hot” in Central Africa, “with record heat“. However, the problem is that there are no measurement stations whatsoever located in the vast region, and so the NOAA simply made up and filled in the hot data.

Heller notes that full-surface temperature measurement by satellites in fact show that “the NOAA’s record hot regions in Africa were actually close to normal“.

- See more at: NoTricksZone: "Not here to worship what is known, but to question it" – Jacob Bronowski. "Fake and vulgar" climate news from Germany in English – by Pierre L. Gosselin

The usual braindead fraudulent drivel from the denier cult nutjobs and propaganda pushers, based only on their own stupidity, ignorance and gullility.

This nonsense has already been debunked in detail many places....here's some more...

Climate Change, Science, NOAA Falsely Maligned by Tabloid Spin
(excerpts)
As a result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the planet is warming. Those who deny this fact have pointed to a supposed “pause” in warming to justify opposition to climate action. In 2015, a study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl was published in Science that flatly refuted the idea of a “pause.” It is one of many. But its high profile made it a target for attack.

On Saturday, a feature in the UK’s Mail on Sunday by David Rose makes outrageous claims that were already disproven as the paper version hit stands, and that he has already had to, in part, correct. Rose, who has a history of inaccurate reporting, spins a scandal out of a letter by a former NOAA employee published on a climate change denial blog. The letter makes accusations of wrongdoing in the methodology and data archiving procedures used in the study. These accusations have already been shown to be faulty. Even if they were true, the implications have been blown out of proportion by Rose.

Rebuttals were published in record time, as within minutes there was a tweet describing the story as “so wrong its hard to know where to start”:

● John Abraham provides context in the Guardian, and points out the many factors Rose fails to address that, when considered, completely undercut his allegations of misconduct.

● Zeke Hausfather, in a fact check, discusses the various lines of evidence that support Karl’s findings. Hausfather published a study in 2016 that confirmed Karl’s findings that the planet has continued to warm, confirming there was never any real “pause.”

● Scott Johnson at Ars Technica spoke with NOAA insiders, and explains how tensions between the science and engineering side of things caused conflict between Karl, who wanted the handling of data to reflect the many sources of the data, and Bates, who advocated for using just one approach that could handle data from many different sources, but sometimes added years to the process.

● Peter Thorne at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, who unlike the letter’s author actually worked on the Karl paper, identifies several key aspects of the allegations that are a “mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”

● Victor Venema of the WMO discusses both the specifics of the data sets as well as some lighthearted context to help understand the “reporting” done by the Mail’s David Rose.

● Ten climate envoys and ministers involved with the Paris Agreement said there was no truth to Rose’s claim that this study influenced their decisions.

● In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.

(Read more at site)

How is it going thunder....have you sought help in dealing with your child hood abuse issues that have led to your present state of anger and intimidation by anyone who disagrees with you? Guess not....still lots of big boldface anger....what did they do to you as a child to lead you to this state as an adult?

 

[Billy_Bob]

If you want to assume a specific power density (239.7 W/m2) and use the S-B equation to calculate the temperature, you are actually calculating a temperature that provides an outgoing radiation from a surface. The sun's short wave radiation hitting the earth would correspond to an earth temperature of -18C only if you do not assume anything else, such as an atmosphere.

Equilibrium requires that the input from the sun is balanced by the output of the earth. So the calculated -18C is the temperature the earth would be if there were no atmosphere at all.

Just how stupid are you really wuwei?....see this graphic..it is the one rocks posted...the one that I responded to...see the text in the box at the bottom of the picture?...see where it says clearly....assuming no atmosphere?....radiation in...radiation out...no atmosphere

see this graphic...see right there in the middle of the graphic on the right side....ATMOSPHERE...that is because that graphic is modeling the greenhouse effect with the atmosphere...note that the 239.7 wm2 remains unchanged...they just add in another 239.7 wm2 from the atmosphere....then using the Stefan Boltzman equation...they ADD the two radiation outputs together...and then calculate a radiating temperature of 303K....using the SB equation, when you have two radiators, you subtract the two which gives you a radiating temperature somewhere in the middle of the two radiators..you don't add them together to get a radiating temperature that is higher then either....are you really this far behind the curve?...got to admit, for a while there, you had me fooled...no longer...

The basic flaw is to think that the outgoing LW radiation from the -18C surface of an airless planet has anything to do with a computation involving the GHE.

No..there are three basic flaws...and both are yours...the first one is not recognizing that the graphic clearly denotes the earth's atmosphere...and the second is that using the SB equation, they added the output of the two radiators together to get a radiating output when they were supposed to subtract and get a temperature somewhere between the two...not a temperature higher than either...and the third basic flaw is that you believed the bullshit of the greenhouse effect in the first place...

You know...I copied some of your comments and ran them by a MSc in applied mathematics...he got a big old bellylaugh...so don't fret over being so far behind the curve here...you are still bringing sunshine into peoples lives...laughter is a much needed commodity in the world and if you can make people laugh like that...then you are doing a real service......even if you can't manage to understand a simple graph and grasp very simple equations...

Here let me help...

The atmosphere is ONE OBJECT, NOT TWO, radiating at 239.7. They are doubling the output of ONE radiating object. not to mention the pooling of two objects radiating at the same temp... The AGW crap has several issues..

 

[Crick]

No..there are three basic flaws...and both are yours.

Counting.... not your strong point.

So, you think receiving 478 W/m^2 won't get you any warmer than receiving 239 W/m^2?

Where do you think that extra energy goes? Oh, I know! Magnetogravitic fields!

 

[SSDD]

No..there are three basic flaws...and both are yours.

Counting.... not your strong point.

So, you think receiving 478 W/m^2 won't get you any warmer than receiving 239 W/m^2?

Where do you think that extra energy goes? Oh, I know! Magnetogravitic fields!

If you have AN OBJECT....a single object radiating at 478wm2....it would radiate at a temperature of 303K...or about 29 degrees....

but according to the SB equation, when you have 2 objects radiating, you don't add them together to get a temperature higher than either...you subtract and get an actual emperature that is somewhere between the two...

On that graphic...they are adding the radiation from the earth...to the radiation supposedly coming down from the atmosphere and claiming that two radiators radiating at -18 degrees can generate a temperature of 29 degrees...48 degrees warmer than either...that...you could prove in a lab...hell you could prove it on your kitchen counter....pour a cup of water at room temperature in a tall glass...then pour a cup of water at 100 degrees into the glass...measure the temperature of the two combined....I positively guarantee you that according to the SB Law, and your thermometer, the resulting temperature will not even be 100 degrees...much less a temperature higher than either..

And yet, you seem to believe that one radiator radiating at -18 degrees and another radiator radiating at -18 degrees can generate a temperature 48 degrees warmer than either...

 

[Crick]

Really? So a fireplace on one side of you gets you just as hot as a fireplace on both sides of you?

 

[SSDD]

Really? So a fireplace on one side of you gets you just as hot as a fireplace on both sides of you?

The temperature you experience will never be warmer than the temperature of the warmest fire.....simply not possible..if it were, you could get more energy out of a source than you put in..

 

[Wuwei]

No..there are three basic flaws...and both are yours...the first one is not recognizing that the graphic clearly denotes the earth's atmosphere..

That is clearly a lie on your part.

and the second is that using the SB equation, they added the output of the two radiators together to get a radiating output when they were supposed to subtract and get a temperature somewhere between the two.

That is clearly a misunderstanding on your part.

.and the third basic flaw is that you believed the bullshit of the greenhouse effect in the first place...

That is clearly a denial of physics for the last 100 years.

If we are arguing science, and you don't believe in the science, and can't understand the science, then you are just a Troll.

 

[Wuwei]

The temperature you experience will never be warmer than the temperature of the warmest fire.....simply not possible..if it were, you could get more energy out of a source than you put in..

When will you ever understand!!!!
If you are sitting by a fire, you experience energy.
Temperature is in the fire.
Energy flies through the air.
You will receive twice as much energy with two fires.
You will get warmer faster. And right, you will not get hotter than the fire, unless your body weight is 90% alcohol.
You are continually confusing energy with temperature, among your confusion with about everything else that has to do with science.

 

[SSDD]

No..there are three basic flaws...and both are yours...the first one is not recognizing that the graphic clearly denotes the earth's atmosphere..

That is clearly a lie on your part.

Moron..you claimed that the graphic denoted the earth without an atmosphere...the atmosphere was clearly labeled on the graphic...

That is clearly a misunderstanding on your part.

No...it is you not realizing that when dealing with two radiators in the SB law...you subtract...you don't add the two together and assume that they combine to result in a higher radiating temperature than either...

That is clearly a denial of physics for the last 100 years.

I don't have a problem with that....long held beliefs regarding physics get knocked down all the time...this will be just one ore...

If we are arguing science, and you don't believe in the science, and can't understand the science, then you are just a Troll.

you don't seem to get that climate science is pseudoscience...and when you are taking the side of climate science...you are arguing pseudoscience...not actual science.

 

[SSDD]

The temperature you experience will never be warmer than the temperature of the warmest fire.....simply not possible..if it were, you could get more energy out of a source than you put in..

When will you ever understand!!!!
If you are sitting by a fire, you experience energy.
Temperature is in the fire.
Energy flies through the air.
You will receive twice as much energy with two fires.
You will get warmer faster. And right, you will not get hotter than the fire, unless your body weight is 90% alcohol.
You are continually confusing energy with temperature, among your confusion with about everything else that has to do with science.

And if we had two suns...there would be twice as much energy striking the surface of the earth....the idiocy of trying to compare two raging fires to the earth emitting, and the atmosphere radiating back is just one more instance of how ignorant you people actually are...and the fact that you are trying to defend the indefensible is just more evidence of the same.

 

[Wuwei]

Moron..you claimed that the graphic denoted the earth without an atmosphere...the atmosphere was clearly labeled on the graphic...

You are compounding your lie.

No...it is you not realizing that when dealing with two radiators in the SB law...you subtract...you don't add the two together and assume that they combine to result in a higher radiating temperature than either...

You don't understand the S-B law. You subtract temperature 4th powers - yes. You subtract energies - no. Not in this case.

I don't have a problem with that....long held beliefs regarding physics get knocked down all the time...this will be just one ore...

You disbelieve physics. Then you are a flat-earth type troll.

you don't seem to get that climate science is pseudoscience...and when you are taking the side of climate science...you are arguing pseudoscience...not actual science.

You don't seem to get that we are talking about the basic physics of radiation not climate science. The University example you gave ignored all the other aspects of climate science such as change in atmospheric density and temperature with altitude, convection, evaporation ...... Their diagram was all radiation physics. You don't seem to understand that.

 

[Wuwei]

And if we had two suns...there would be twice as much energy striking the surface of the earth....the idiocy of trying to compare two raging fires to the earth emitting, and the atmosphere radiating back is just one more instance of how ignorant you people actually are...and the fact that you are trying to defend the indefensible is just more evidence of the same.

Yes. Two identical suns at the same distance would double the energy hitting earth too, just as two bonfires. Do you doubt that?