NOAA Satellite records second largest 2-month temperature drop in history

[Sunsettommy]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Flat-earthers act just like you. They also claim that any hard evidence that contradicts their loopy claims has to be faked, and that anyone who believes the hard evidence is crazy and evil.

This isn't a debate. If you point a pyrgeometer at the sky, you measure the backradiation being around twice as strong as the direct sunlight. That varies with geography and time, but it's about the average for the whole earth.

The fact that flat-earthers reject reality doesn't make the earth flat, no matter how fervent their beliefs are. It's the same with your reality-defying beliefs.

I see that you can't post a counter to my laughing at this STUPID statement YOU wrote at post 105:

"Not according to the hard data, which measures backradiation as having about twice the power of direct sunlight."

You have a belly bluster in reply, that is all you can do because you are totally deficient in your ability to make rational statements,

It is clear that you fell for a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window, and that you idiotically beloeve it is a pollutant.

My, my,, the stupidity rolls right off your dewy fingers!

 

[mamooth]

Since when has the "%" symbol meant "W/m^2"? ... which impoverished third world nation did you learn English-as-a-second-language ... Mississippi? ...

Seriously, what are you babbling about? Your responses are just bizarre. It's as if you're in a panic-deflection mode now.

If I was talking about standard error, I'd have said standard error ...

Science uses standard error, and the science is what you were whimpering about all being a big fraud. Your botched version of "statistics for 14-year-olds" is not relevant to the actual science.

You have a reasonably good knowledge base in these matters ...

Which is why you're in full-blown deflection mode now.

temperature on Earth is proportional to the fourth root of input energy

No, temperature of a black body is proportional to the fourth root. Earth is not a black body.

Remember, you can only pull off the condescending act if you know what you're talking about. You don't, so you can't.

... SB's Law ... small changes in solar output make teeny tiny changes in temperature here ... that's the law ... proof of any violation gets you a meeting with the Queen of Sweden ...

Fascinating. You still seem to be claiming changes in solar activity have no effect on climate, even though average temps tracked solar activity closely prior to 1970. You cling to a claim that's contradicted by the hard data. Why are you so emotionally invested in being wrong?

 

[mamooth]

I see that you can't post a counter to my laughing at this STUPID statement YOU wrote at post 105:

I addressed it directly, by pointing out that you were making a delusional claim. I see how that triggered you, but that's not my problem.

If a flat-earther claims that all photographs of the round earth are faked, I point out the flat-earther is delusional or lying, because that's what the hard data says.

When you claim there's no significant backradiation, I point out that you're either delusional or lying, because that's what the hard data says.

It's not debatable that you're pushing a falsehood. The only question is whether you do it deliberately or out of stupidity.

It is clear that you fell for a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window, and that you idiotically beloeve it is a pollutant.

Please don't change the topic, which is you getting humiliated concerning your idiot claims about there not being backradiation. You shouldn't have fallen for the Sky Dragon Slayer/PSI stupidity. Even most of the WUWT cranks think that stuff is dumb. Why on earth did you think that embracing it would be a good idea?

 

[mamooth]

Your assertions are so wrong, on so many levels, that its useless to even try to show you, again, how wrong you are.

Got it. You're doubling down on your theory that white paint creates energy.

Now, when is the next ice age coming again? Wasn't it supposed to be 10 years ago, and every year since then? No matter. Your faith is true. Each time your icy doomsday fails to arrive, you can just push back the date again.

 

[ReinyDays]

Fascinating. You still seem to be claiming changes in solar activity have no effect on climate, even though average temps tracked solar activity closely prior to 1970. You cling to a claim that's contradicted by the hard data. Why are you so emotionally invested in being wrong?

Absolutely ... with the IPCC's prediction of a 2ºC temperature increase in 100 years ... which point on the Earth surface will climate change? ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

I see that you can't post a counter to my laughing at this STUPID statement YOU wrote at post 105:

I addressed it directly, by pointing out that you were making a delusional claim. I see how that triggered you, but that's not my problem.

If a flat-earther claims that all photographs of the round earth are faked, I point out the flat-earther is delusional or lying, because that's what the hard data says.

When you claim there's no significant backradiation, I point out that you're either delusional or lying, because that's what the hard data says.

It's not debatable that you're pushing a falsehood. The only question is whether you do it deliberately or out of stupidity.

It is clear that you fell for a trace gas with a trace IR absorption window, and that you idiotically beloeve it is a pollutant.

Please don't change the topic, which is you getting humiliated concerning your idiot claims about there not being backradiation. You shouldn't have fallen for the Sky Dragon Slayer/PSI stupidity. Even most of the WUWT cranks think that stuff is dumb. Why on earth did you think that embracing it would be a good idea?

Now I see that mamooth is babbling and lying all over his asinine statement, which the fool has yet to support factually....

Here it is again, does anyone think this is a rational statement?

Not according to the hard data, which measures backradiation as having about twice the power of direct sunlight.

 

[mamooth]

Now I see that mamooth is babbling and lying all over his asinine statement, which the fool has yet to support factually....

Being that you're just screaming at me now, I think everyone takes that as your admission of surrender.

Here it is again, does anyone think this is a rational statement?

Why does such a simple statement of fact trigger you so massively? Do you notice how it's not triggering anyone except you and Billy? What does that tell you?

Here's a nice piece that talks about the measurement, and references many specific papers.

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”

This could have been included in the Earth’s Energy Budget series, but it deserved a post of its own. First of all, what is “back-radiation” ? It’s the radiation emitted by …

scienceofdoom.com

Here's the Trenberth diagram. The direct solar energy term is 184 W/m^2, and the backradiation term is 333 W/m^2.

I'm thinking you've gotten confused by the concept of an average. In the Trenberth diagram, everything is averaged over a long time period over the whole earth. Backradiation is coming down day and night, while direct radiation goes away at night. and is pretty insignificant in mornings and evenings. At high noon on a sunny day, it's likely the direct radiation will be stronger than the backradiation. However, that's not what was being discussed. The average was being discussed, and on average, there's about twice as much backradiation.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Now I see that mamooth is babbling and lying all over his asinine statement, which the fool has yet to support factually....

Being that you're just screaming at me now, I think everyone takes that as your admission of surrender.

Here it is again, does anyone think this is a rational statement?

Why does such a simple statement of fact trigger you so massively? Do you notice how it's not triggering anyone except you and Billy? What does that tell you?

Here's a nice piece that talks about the measurement, and references many specific papers.

The Amazing Case of “Back-Radiation”

This could have been included in the Earth’s Energy Budget series, but it deserved a post of its own. First of all, what is “back-radiation” ? It’s the radiation emitted by …

scienceofdoom.com

Here's the Trenberth diagram. The direct solar energy term is 184 W/m^2, and the backradiation term is 333 W/m^2.

I'm thinking you've gotten confused by the concept of an average. In the Trenberth diagram, everything is averaged over a long time period over the whole earth. Backradiation is coming down day and night, while direct radiation goes away at night. and is pretty insignificant in mornings and evenings. At high noon on a sunny day, it's likely the direct radiation will be stronger than the backradiation. However, that's not what was being discussed. The average was being discussed, and on average, there's about twice as much backradiation.

Ha ha ha ha ha I expected you to show that highly misleading out of date chart, since you don't realize that Surface Radiation and backradiation is a RADIATIVE Flux NOT energy transfers, as pointed out here:

LINK

"This is reasonably accurate, but it is also entirely misleading. The two large energy flows named Surface Radiation and Back Radiation are different from all the others. They are not measures of energy transfers, but of radiative flux (also called forcing). As I have described before, there is a difference between energy transfers and radiative flux. Two objects at the same temperature have zero net energy transfer and as a result, will not change temperature. As the surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above have a small temperature difference (to be shown in a later article), there is little energy transfer between the two."

374-333 = 41, which is far less than the Solar Radiation surface ENERGY absorption of 161.

===

Meanwhile your misleading chart was superseded by Trenberths 2008 chart, and even later by the updated NASA chart, here is the Trenberth 2008 chart with NASA's red numbers added on:

NASA LINK

This chart LINK

There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I live in NY and the heat is on in the house. In the 30s outside.

But when you add in the warming trapped in the deep ocean and not caused by atmospheric CO2, its the warmest average ever

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate is a dynamic process. It is powered entirely by solar energy. That energy is held in a few different ways: the kinetic energy of moving air and water, the potential energy of atmosphere lifted against the force of gravity and by temperature. The thermal energy of the atmosphere is by far the largest factor in powering the system. Your comment is complete nonsense. And since I turned 66 a few years ago and my mother has been dead for quite a few years, no, she did not tie my shoes this morning. What you think that might have to do with this conversation is beyond me.

As to the original point, the Earth's average temperature has been climbing for the last 150 years or so and the climb has steadily accelerated till today we are setting new records on an almost daily basis. During that time, local temperatures have still varied as much or more as they ever did. That the northern hemisphere should cool for two months, in light of that history, is effectively irrelevant.

Weather is a dynamic process ... weather is powered by solar energy (and gravity) ... the energy is held as kinetic energy of the atmospheric molecules, which by definition is it's temperature ... where did you learn your meteorology, Jason's Flight Academy? ...

Climate attempts to "average out" these dynamic fluctuations ... generally over 100 year time periods as this includes four solar cycles, and out of every four solar cycles we'll more likely remove this from our climate averages than just a single cycle ... the law of large numbers ... we use ∆t = 100 years instead of dt ...

Earth's average temperature as risen 1ºC in the past 150 years, and the IPCC report claims it will rise another 2ºC over the next 150 years ... drive an hour or two south and tell me the climate changed ... catastrophically ...

The large scale circulation drives cyclonic activity which in turn drives thunderstorm activity which in turn drives temperature ... of the fourth order of consideration ... that's right, average wind direction is the single most important factor in climate ...

The IPCC admitted they use climate policy to redistribute wealth

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I never said a cooling sun causes fast warming, what I keep saying that the SUN is the dominant SOURCE of ocean warming.

Well, yes. The direct sunlight, and the backradiation that results from the sunlight. I'm just wondering why you thought that stating the obvious was supposed to prove your point somehow.

No the ocean waters have been COOLING a lot in recent years,

Totally wrong. Who told you such a thing, and why did you believe it?

Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019 - Advances in Atmospheric Sciences

link.springer.com

Since the oceans have been and continue to warm very strongly, they can not be losing heat to the land. Your theory is therefore debunked by the hard evidence, so it is wrong. End of story.

El-Nino phases is when you have warm surface waters accumulate that goes in the atmosphere, never said land. Tropical Storms, Hurricanes also cools the ocean surface due to accelerated outflow of energy.

Already posted this once

"El-Nino/ Modoki phases = Ocean cooling, atmosphere warming.

La-Nina phases = Ocean recharging/warming up, atmosphere cooling.

El-Nino/ Modoki phases have been common for over a decade now."

Your own paper continues the stupid CO2 back radiation warming up the ocean waters argument, it is truly a stupid claim....

It is clear YOU never read the math on it, versus the oceans capacity to absorb energy. Only the SUN contributes the necessary energy flow to heat up the surface waters, the inflow many times greater than the postulated CO2 inflow contribution.

Why do you fall for such bullshit so easily?

===

Here is a detailed comment posted by Dr. Clark:

R. Clark

It is simply impossible for the observed increase in downward LWIR flux from a 120 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to heat the oceans. This presumed LWIR induced ocean warming is one of the major errors in the global warming scam. The increase in flux from CO2 is nominally 2 W.m^-2 or 0.18 MJ.m^-2 per day. The oceans are heated by the sun – up to 25 MJ m^-2 per day for full tropical or summer sun. About half of this solar heat is absorbed in the first 1 m layer of the ocean and 90% is absorbed in the first 10 m layer. The heat is removed by a combination of wind driven evaporation from the surface and LWIR emission from the first 100 micron layer. That’s about the width of a human hair. In round numbers, about 50 W.m^-2 is removed from the ocean surface by the LWIR flux and the balance comes from the wind driven evaporation. The heat capacity of the cooled layer at the surface is quite small – 4.2 kJ.m^-2 for a 1 mm layer. This reacts quite rapidly to any changes in the cooling flux and the heat transfer from the bulk ocean below and the evaporation rate change accordingly. The cooler water produce at the surface then sinks and cools the bulk ocean layer below. This is not just a diffusion process, but convection in which the cooler water sinks and warmer rises in a complex circulating flow pattern (Rayleigh-Benard convection). This couples the surface momentum (wind shear) to lower depths and drives the ocean currents. At higher latitudes the surface area of a sphere decreases and this drives the currents to lower depths.

In round numbers, the temperature increase produced by a 2 W.m^-2 increase in LWIR flux from CO2 is overwhelmed by a 50 ± 50 W.m^-2 flux of cold water and a 0 to 1000 W.m^-2 solar heating flux.

Over the tropical warm pool the wind driven cooling rate is about 40 W.m^-2.m.s^-1 (40 Watts per square meter for each 1 m/sec change in wind speed). This means that a change in wind speed of 20 cm.s^-1 is equivalent to the global warming heat flux. (20 centimeters per second).

There is a lot of useful information on ocean surface evaporation on the Woods Hole website OAFlux Data Access
The heat content of the first 700 m layer of the ocean is of little concern in climate studies. It is the first 100 to 200 m depth that matters. About half of the increase in heat content occurs in the first 100 m layer. This is shown in Figure 2 of the 2012 Levitus paper.

The ocean warming fraud goes back to the early global warming models. In their 1967 paper, Manabe and Wetherald used a ‘blackbody surface’ with ‘zero heat capacity’. They created the global warming scam as a mathematical artifact of their modeling assumptions. These propagated into the Charney Report in 1979. Then an ‘ocean layer’ was added to the model. The layer had thermal properties such as heat capacity and thermal diffusion, but the CO2 flux increase had to magically heat the oceans. This is computational climate fiction. Any computer model that predicts ocean warming from CO2 is by definition fraudulent. The fraud can be found in Hansen’s 1981 Science paper and has continued ever since.
Hansen, J.; D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind and G. Russell Science 213 957-956 (1981), ‘Climate impact of increasing carbon dioxide’ Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

For a more detailed discussion see:
Clark, R., 2013a, Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 319-340 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part I: Concepts’
Clark, R., 2013b, Energy and Environment 24(3, 4) 341-359 (2013) ‘A dynamic coupled thermal reservoir approach to atmospheric energy transfer Part II: Applications’
http://venturaphotonics.com/GlobalWarming.html

======

Black and Red bolding mine

CO2 warming up the ocean waters claim is pure stupidity.

The IPCC had to "hide the decline", so they added in a brand new dataset to their flawed models: the warming trapped by the deep oceans. If Bernie Madoff could tell his investors that their money was in the deep oceans he'd still be in the fund business.

 

[ReinyDays]

The IPCC admitted they use climate policy to redistribute wealth

The IPCC had to "hide the decline", so they added in a brand new dataset to their flawed models: the warming trapped by the deep oceans. If Bernie Madoff could tell his investors that their money was in the deep oceans he'd still be in the fund business.

I'm not familiar with the economic sections of the IPCC report, just the scientific portions ... which sections should I read to verify your claims? ...

Adding "in a brand new dataset to their flawed models" makes no sense to me ... what dataset, which model? ... the heat in the deep oceans has always been on the table, are you saying there will be new information in the next report? ... how do we add new information to an old document? ...

Ah ... you think the IPCC report is a scientific report? ... no, it's not ... it includes science, but it is a political document written for policy-makers in government ... and as such, it's written to advance the policies of the United Nations ... and wealth redistribution is a part of their mandate ... see how rich countries pay more every year than poor countries ... it's called progress ...

You and your kind paid an extra $60,000 in Federal income taxes a few years ago just so I didn't have to pay any ... thank you for advocating against wealth redistribution on my behalf ... it's great that folks like you just keep paying more and more taxes so folks like me don't have to pay but a trifle ... I'm fine with 8-year-old children working 14 hours a day mining diamonds in Angola for one bowl of weeviled rice if that means I can sit here half the day playing World of Warships ...

The median annual income in Togo is $571 {Cite} ... how's that compare to your monthly rent/mortgage? ... I know, these places without electricity don't have internet either, these poor folk can't log in and complain ... it's just natural to think they love their impoverished lifestyle and deprivations ...

Sorry about the threadshit ... it bothers me that in many places in the world, the safest place for a pretty teenage girl is a brothel ... otherwise the roaming gangs steal them and God knows what happens to them ... over a cliff when they're six month pregnant I guess ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The IPCC admitted they use climate policy to redistribute wealth

The IPCC had to "hide the decline", so they added in a brand new dataset to their flawed models: the warming trapped by the deep oceans. If Bernie Madoff could tell his investors that their money was in the deep oceans he'd still be in the fund business.

I'm not familiar with the economic sections of the IPCC report, just the scientific portions ... which sections should I read to verify your claims? ...

Adding "in a brand new dataset to their flawed models" makes no sense to me ... what dataset, which model? ... the heat in the deep oceans has always been on the table, are you saying there will be new information in the next report? ... how do we add new information to an old document? ...

Ah ... you think the IPCC report is a scientific report? ... no, it's not ... it includes science, but it is a political document written for policy-makers in government ... and as such, it's written to advance the policies of the United Nations ... and wealth redistribution is a part of their mandate ... see how rich countries pay more every year than poor countries ... it's called progress ...

You and your kind paid an extra $60,000 in Federal income taxes a few years ago just so I didn't have to pay any ... thank you for advocating against wealth redistribution on my behalf ... it's great that folks like you just keep paying more and more taxes so folks like me don't have to pay but a trifle ... I'm fine with 8-year-old children working 14 hours a day mining diamonds in Angola for one bowl of weeviled rice if that means I can sit here half the day playing World of Warships ...

The median annual income in Togo is $571 {Cite} ... how's that compare to your monthly rent/mortgage? ... I know, these places without electricity don't have internet either, these poor folk can't log in and complain ... it's just natural to think they love their impoverished lifestyle and deprivations ...

Sorry about the threadshit ... it bothers me that in many places in the world, the safest place for a pretty teenage girl is a brothel ... otherwise the roaming gangs steal them and God knows what happens to them ... over a cliff when they're six month pregnant I guess ...

Not sure how you reach adulthood and still believe that government controlled "redistribution of wealth" means anything but the political leaders gather all the wealth for themselves. The people who thought that surrendering their property, guns and freedom to the redistributors always end up eating their pets and selling their kids. But it'll be different this time with IPCC in charge! I know it!

If you want a successful model of communities working together you might want to check out Chabad. Even in Chad, they have a world community to rely upon.

"But one has to say clearly: We de facto redistribute global wealth through climate policy. It is obvious that the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about it. One has to get rid of the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy..." Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N.s IPCC Working Group III

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» | NZZ

I don't recall WHEN the "Heat trapped in the deep ocean" was added into the IPCC reports, might have been V and they totally fucking Schruted it at first. The first report said that over 90% of the excess heat was trapped in the oceans, which made me howl with laughter. They've since corrected the obvious error and try to make anyone forget they were as wrong as Krugman

 

[mamooth]

Ha ha ha ha ha I expected you to show that highly misleading out of date chart, since you don't realize that Surface Radiation and backradiation is a RADIATIVE Flux NOT energy transfers, as pointed out here:

So, once more, after I showed your loopy claims were totally wrong, you're changing the topic by rambling about things that are totally obvious. I'm glad that you managed to figure out the radiative flux isn't energy transfer. However, given that radiative flux leads to energy transfer, your statement of the obvious seems pointless.

Meanwhile your misleading chart was superseded by Trenberths 2008 chart, and even later by the updated NASA chart, here is the Trenberth 2008 chart with NASA's red numbers added on:

And it stills shows the backradiation as being almost twice the direct radiation, so I thank you for confirming my point.

There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?

Go on, tell us. This should be hilarious. Not as hilarious, of course, as you citing the chart that shows I'm right as your new most trusted source. Next time, if you just admit at the start that I was right, we can save a lot of time.

 

[Levant]

Watts Up With That?

NOAA Satellite records second largest 2-month temperature drop in history

Anthony Watts

May 1, 2020

Excerpt:

In April, 2020, the Northern Hemisphere experienced its 2nd largest 2-month drop in temperature in the 497-month satellite record.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for April, 2020 was +0.38 deg. C, down from the March, 2020 value of +0.48 deg. C.

The Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly fell from +0.96 deg. C to 0.43 deg. C from February to April, a 0.53 deg. C drop which is the 2nd largest 2-month drop in the 497-month satellite record. The largest 2-month drop was -0.69 deg. C from December 1987 to February 1988.
LINK

=====

CO2 effect doesn't show up on the chart below at all.

Here is a chart from HERE, Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

View attachment 330556

I just hope that we don't cut CO2 emissions and start suffocating trees. This is very scary; everyone go out in the driveway and let your cars just run and burn some hydrocarbons.

 

[Levant]

Here it is again, does anyone think this is a rational statement?

Not according to the hard data, which measures backradiation as having about twice the power of direct sunlight.

It reminds me of claims that second-hand smoke is deadlier than smoking.

 

[ReinyDays]

I just hope that we don't cut CO2 emissions and start suffocating trees. This is very scary; everyone go out in the driveway and let your cars just run and burn some hydrocarbons.

No worries ... during the last glaciation, CO2 dropped to 180 ppm ... any plant species not adapted for that would have gone extinct ... but definitely quit recycling your plastics, burn them so they don't wind up in the oceans ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Ha ha ha ha ha I expected you to show that highly misleading out of date chart, since you don't realize that Surface Radiation and backradiation is a RADIATIVE Flux NOT energy transfers, as pointed out here:

So, once more, after I showed your loopy claims were totally wrong, you're changing the topic by rambling about things that are totally obvious. I'm glad that you managed to figure out the radiative flux isn't energy transfer. However, given that radiative flux leads to energy transfer, your statement of the obvious seems pointless.

Meanwhile your misleading chart was superseded by Trenberths 2008 chart, and even later by the updated NASA chart, here is the Trenberth 2008 chart with NASA's red numbers added on:

And it stills shows the backradiation as being almost twice the direct radiation, so I thank you for confirming my point.

There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?

Go on, tell us. This should be hilarious. Not as hilarious, of course, as you citing the chart that shows I'm right as your new most trusted source. Next time, if you just admit at the start that I was right, we can save a lot of time.

No you just embarrass yourself again and again.

You made a claim a few days ago, "Not according to the hard data, which measures backradiation as having about twice the power of direct sunlight."

you have NEVER backed it up, now you are whining because I destroyed your misleading chart claims, go back to post 128, learn that you failed to understand the DIFFERENCE between Energy Transfer and Radiative flux.

Here is the basic tally of the numbers:

Energy Transfer:

163+77= 240

Radiative Flux:

358-340= 18

Which number is bigger 240 or 18?

===

Meanwhile you failed to answer this question, but I know why you will avoid it, because you have no clue to what the obvious is.

"There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?"

 

[mamooth]

you have NEVER backed it up,

You mean aside from the link I provided that cites multiple papers, and the chart that you keep citing as a trusted reference?

I've backed up my claims many times. In contrast, you've provided zilch to back up your kooky religious mantra that says the backradiation that we directly measure doesn't actually exist.

Energy Transfer:

163+77= 240

Radiative Flux:

358-340= 18

Which number is bigger 240 or 18?

Sometimes, there just aren't enough facepalms.

Why in glub's name are you comparing the adjustment in backradiation between the two studies to the total amount of incoming solar radiation?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Oh wait, that's not quite it. It's more like you're comparing apples and automobiles. What you did was senseless and meaningless. It's like you compared miles per hour to miles. You can't compare a first derivative to a zeroith derivative.

"There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?"

I implied the question was stupid, and then asked you to answer your own question. By then answering it, you conclusively demonstrated that indeed, the question was very stupid. Thank you for confirming my point, which is that you ask stupid questions because you have no idea what you're babbling about.

 

[Sunsettommy]

you have NEVER backed it up,

You mean aside from the link I provided that cites multiple papers, and the chart that you keep citing as a trusted reference?

I've backed up my claims many times. In contrast, you've provided zilch to back up your kooky religious mantra that says the backradiation that we directly measure doesn't actually exist.

Energy Transfer:

163+77= 240

Radiative Flux:

358-340= 18

Which number is bigger 240 or 18?

Sometimes, there just aren't enough facepalms.

Why in glub's name are you comparing the adjustment in backradiation between the two studies to the total amount of incoming solar radiation?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Oh wait, that's not quite it. It's more like you're comparing apples and automobiles. What you did was senseless and meaningless. It's like you compared miles per hour to miles. You can't compare a first derivative to a zeroith derivative.

"There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?"

I implied the question was stupid, and then asked you to answer your own question. By then answering it, you conclusively demonstrated that indeed, the question was very stupid. Thank you for confirming my point, which is that you ask stupid questions because you have no idea what you're babbling about.

I notice you didn't actually contradict anything, your babbling without evidence don't work here.

I posted the Updated Trenberth Chart, then posted the updated NASA numbers (Links were provided) yet you get angry that I did that.



Third Time I am asking you this question you keep avoiding.

There is one set of new updated numbers showing that GHG's footprint gets a lot smaller over time as they updated the chart Global Energy Flows. Can you spot it, Mamooth?



I repeat this part you COMPLETELY ignored:

"No you just embarrass yourself again and again.

You made a claim a few days ago, "Not according to the hard data, which measures backradiation as having about twice the power of direct sunlight."

you have NEVER backed it up, now you are whining because I destroyed your misleading chart claims, go back to post 128, learn that you failed to understand the DIFFERENCE between Energy Transfer and Radiative flux.

Here is the basic tally of the numbers:

Energy Transfer:

163+77= 240

Radiative Flux:

358-340= 18

Which number is bigger 240 or 18?"

=====

You haven't showed any indication that you know the difference between Energy Transfer and Radiative Flux.

You avoid my questions over and over, you apparently run on bullshit.

I can understand why you ignored it, it destroyed all of your bullshit in one swoop.