2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rrog said:
Do you suppose actual climate scientists have these conversations also? I think it likely, right? Seminars and summit meetings on the topic for decades now.

So when they (the scientists) look at these things and as a consensus conclude there is global warming, are we basically second guessing the experts? We don't believe them, is the takeaway. We have more data, experience and education so as to negate the majority of scientists?

So while all of this data back and forth is pretty, what the hell is really being accomplished? Nada.
Click to expand...
To me, I'm boggled that anybody believes that crap. This thread helps me get an idea what their arguments are. Otherwise, I think you can apply the same thing that you said here to just about any thread in politics.

From what I've gathered in discussion with friends that are scientists (life sciences, ocean sciences and chemistry), the question regarding the validity of AGW theory within that community is completely settled. The argument for denial mostly comes from a few well funded scientists that provide cover for politicians fighting funding for climate research. Funding is something they will fight over and so it can get heated especially in public forums but not within the community of scientists. The real technical debate is done.

Until now, I've pretty much stayed away from this argument, mostly because the deniers seem to me to have no background in any of the sciences, so why bother? My current purpose is to go through their arguments and the counter arguments for my own benefit. Its actually for me. I don't think I'm going to change somebody like MNC's mind one bit. If I can annoy one or two of them then bonus to me. But I'm going to try to stick to technical stuff as best I can.

In any case, @MuyLocoNC s' post where he yucks up a reference without an example is telling. He mocks but doesn't have anything substantial to say. He might as well be professing a religious belief.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Nice graph. your point is?
Click to expand...
Your beliefs are based on (continually distorted) fabrications. There is no such thing as global average temperature. If you proponents could even begin to wrap your head around that, the whole thing comes undone.

Fogdog said:
None of this disproves the physics and implementation of the AGW theory HYPOTHESIS
Click to expand...

Oh...you want physics? o_O
Get your crash helmet ready, bub. Not so much to protect your skull but to keep your marbles from flying out. :lol:

To begin, here is the basic equation of calorimetry, taught to every intro phys student (and chem students...I don't know about those other, lesser sciences):

, (Eq.1)
where Q is thermal energy (in Joules), m = mass(kg), C_p = specific heat capacity(kJ/kg.K), and dT, the temperature change (Kelvin).

First, we need to define what the Earth (i.e. surface) is made of and the specific heat capacities. We can look at a variety of materials (via engineeringtoolbox.com, accepted by most--if not all--physicists as a go-to for first approximations; hereafter referred to as ETB) from "dry earth" (1.26), to clay (0.92), to dry sand (0.8 ), to "stone"(0.8 ) etc. For the sake of reducing needless complexity, an average of 0.88 will be applied. If you deem that unreasonable, then plug in your own values to your heart's content.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-solids-d_154.html

We then need to consider the representative mass via density. Now Wikipedia (blech!) says the "average" density of the surface is ~3000kg/m^3. That is a gross over-simplification and I want to be generous to your side, so looking at "dirt and mud densities" from ETB, one finds values from 1220-2560 kg/m^3. Applying an average yields 1890 (go ahead and calculate a "true" value if you feel so inclined, it won't affect the conclusion).
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html

So, rearranging and plugging the values into Eq.1, one finds,
Q/dT = (0.88 )(1890) = 1135.2 kJ/K, i.e. 1135.2 kJ of energy must be applied to raise the temperature level of our "earth" by 1K. Following me so far?

How about seawater? At 298K (standard temp) one finds the density as ~997 kg/m^3 (if you don't understand why it is less than fresh water, watch some Khan academy vids or ask your "friends" to explain it to you) with a specific heat cap. of 4.009.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sea-water-properties-d_840.html
This yields,
Q/dT = (4.009)(997) = 3996.97 kJ/K :shock: That's a helluva lot of energy required, eh? :lol:

Next, let's look at a cubic meter of "dry-air" over our representative piece of "earth". Now I need to be careful here, because "air" has a couple different specific heats (since it can expand/compress, thereby having a potential for doing WORK). But I want to leave that aspect for a later installment (yes...I intend to dismantle this AGW BS from several angles :lol: ), so I'll just look at the C_p value (which is greater anyway, giving your side more ammo, in essence). Okay? This is not a "trick" like hockey-sticks, just a minor convenience to drive the point home without needless complexity, again.
The specific heat is 1.0049 with a density of 1.177 (at 300K c/o ETB....I know it's 2 K over the STP, but the difference is trivial in the grand scheme).
This yields,
Q/dT = (1.0049)(1.177) = 1.18 kJ/K
This is tiny (so very, very tiny) in comparison to the the other thermal energy requirements (by >3 orders of magnitude). In essence, it says "dry air" is a terrible absorber of thermal energy.

So what does this quantitative analysis tell us? It is IMPOSSIBLE for the air to transfer energy to our cubic meter of Earth, raising it by 1K with conduction, unless the parcel of air is ~1400 K greater. That's approaching a temperature that can melt metals, never mind your face.

Or to ponder it from the perspective of power (consider this a preview), assuming the air magically transfers ~1200 W/m^2 via conduction (i.e. dumping the entire heat capacity and approaching the level of the "solar constant", which is patently absurd in reality and according to the hypothesis of AGW "science"), it would take that parcel of air ~8.7 HOURS to raise the temperature of a cubic meter of representative earth from the supposed 255K temperature of an "atmosphereless" world (which is actually completely wrong, to be dealt with later) to the ~288K "average" (I'm only using that word for the sake of your beliefs).

I presume I don't need to repeat this exercise for sea-water...I suspect you are bright enough to figure out what will happen there. (hint: a lot worse in terms of logic unless you can stop the Earth from rotating, Superman)

However, that is just theoretical wandering into bizarro territory. I like experiments, so what does that tell us? Taking my K-type Thermocouple outside (around 23:10 Feb 10 2016 and calibrated to verified room temperature and oral temperature...probably not the healthiest idea, but YOLO) I measured the air in 10 places, all at least 1m from each other, ~1cm above the ground.
All readings were the same and yielded a steady 9degC (282K).

Upon sticking the thermocouple into the earth at ~1cm, what were the readings?
9degC (282K)...HUZZAH! The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy are still valid on our planet.

Phew...I was getting worried there.

Actually...no I wasn't...:lol:

CONCLUSION:
The surface conducts "heat" to the air, not the other way around...unequivocally. Ergo, by extension, atmospheric gases--including CO2--COOL the surface via conduction.

AGW Scorecard:
Conduction FAIL
Convection ?to be determined
Radiation ?ditto

Isn't Physics Phucking Phantastic? There's a good reason it is considered the KING of the sciences.



TO BE CONTINUED
NB any errors are my doing. My cat can't check the math, so feel free to do so at your leisure.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Your beliefs are based on (continually distorted) fabrications. There is no such thing as global average temperature. If you proponents could even begin to wrap your head around that, the whole thing comes undone.



Oh...you want physics? o_O
Get your crash helmet ready, bub. Not so much to protect your skull but to keep your marbles from flying out. :lol:

To begin, here is the basic equation of calorimetry, taught to every intro phys student (and chem students...I don't know about those other, lesser sciences):

, (Eq.1)
where Q is thermal energy (in Joules), m = mass(kg), C_p = specific heat capacity(kJ/kg.K), and dT, the temperature change (Kelvin).

First, we need to define what the Earth (i.e. surface) is made of and the specific heat capacities. We can look at a variety of materials (via engineeringtoolbox.com, accepted by most--if not all--physicists as a go-to for first approximations; hereafter referred to as ETB) from "dry earth" (1.26), to clay (0.92), to dry sand (0.8 ), to "stone"(0.8 ) etc. For the sake of reducing needless complexity, an average of 0.88 will be applied. If you deem that unreasonable, then plug in your own values to your heart's content.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-solids-d_154.html

We then need to consider the representative mass via density. Now Wikipedia (blech!) says the "average" density of the surface is ~3000kg/m^3. That is a gross over-simplification and I want to be generous to your side, so looking at "dirt and mud densities" from ETB, one finds values from 1220-2560 kg/m^3. Applying an average yields 1890 (go ahead and calculate a "true" value if you feel so inclined, it won't affect the conclusion).
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-d_1727.html

So, rearranging and plugging the values into Eq.1, one finds,
Q/dT = (0.88 )(1890) = 1135.2 kJ/K, i.e. 1135.2 kJ of energy must be applied to raise the temperature level of our "earth" by 1K. Following me so far?

How about seawater? At 298K (standard temp) one finds the density as ~997 kg/m^3 (if you don't understand why it is less than fresh water, watch some Khan academy vids or ask your "friends" to explain it to you) with a specific heat cap. of 4.009.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sea-water-properties-d_840.html
This yields,
Q/dT = (4.009)(997) = 3996.97 kJ/K :shock: That's a helluva lot of energy required, eh? :lol:

Next, let's look at a cubic meter of "dry-air" over our representative piece of "earth". Now I need to be careful here, because "air" has a couple different specific heats (since it can expand/compress, thereby having a potential for doing WORK). But I want to leave that aspect for a later installment (yes...I intend to dismantle this AGW BS from several angles :lol: ), so I'll just look at the C_p value (which is greater anyway, giving your side more ammo, in essence). Okay? This is not a "trick" like hockey-sticks, just a minor convenience to drive the point home without needless complexity, again.
The specific heat is 1.0049 with a density of 1.177 (at 300K c/o ETB....I know it's 2 K over the STP, but the difference is trivial in the grand scheme).
This yields,
Q/dT = (1.0049)(1.177) = 1.18 kJ/K
This is tiny (so very, very tiny) in comparison to the the other thermal energy requirements (by >3 orders of magnitude). In essence, it says "dry air" is a terrible absorber of thermal energy.

So what does this quantitative analysis tell us? It is IMPOSSIBLE for the air to transfer energy to our cubic meter of Earth, raising it by 1K with conduction, unless the parcel of air is ~1400 K greater. That's approaching a temperature that can melt metals, never mind your face.

Or to ponder it from the perspective of power (consider this a preview), assuming the air magically transfers ~1200 W/m^2 via conduction (i.e. dumping the entire heat capacity and approaching the level of the "solar constant", which is patently absurd in reality and according to the hypothesis of AGW "science"), it would take that parcel of air ~8.7 HOURS to raise the temperature of a cubic meter of representative earth from the supposed 255K temperature of an "atmosphereless" world (which is actually completely wrong, to be dealt with later) to the ~288K "average" (I'm only using that word for the sake of your beliefs).

I presume I don't need to repeat this exercise for sea-water...I suspect you are bright enough to figure out what will happen there. (hint: a lot worse in terms of logic unless you can stop the Earth from rotating, Superman)

However, that is just theoretical wandering into bizarro territory. I like experiments, so what does that tell us? Taking my K-type Thermocouple outside (around 23:10 Feb 10 2016 and calibrated to verified room temperature and oral temperature...probably not the healthiest idea, but YOLO) I measured the air in 10 places, all at least 1m from each other, ~1cm above the ground.
All readings were the same and yielded a steady 9degC (282K).

Upon sticking the thermocouple into the earth at ~1cm, what were the readings?
9degC (282K)...HUZZAH! The Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy are still valid on our planet.

Phew...I was getting worried there.

Actually...no I wasn't...:lol:

CONCLUSION:
The surface conducts "heat" to the air, not the other way around...unequivocally. Ergo, by extension, atmospheric gases--including CO2--COOL the surface via conduction.

AGW Scorecard:
Conduction FAIL
Convection ?to be determined
Radiation ?ditto

Isn't Physics Phucking Phantastic? There's a good reason it is considered the KING of the sciences.



TO BE CONTINUED
NB any errors are my doing. My cat can't check the math, so feel free to do so at your leisure.
Click to expand...
OK, I'm interested, go on. Agree that the earth is not heated much by conduction and that anthropogenic global warming is not due to human-generated CO2 and other greenhouse gasses conducting more heat from the sun to the atmosphere and earth. Its a straw man though. You just disproved something nobody said.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
I sure as fuck didn't understand all of it, but I enjoyed reading it. The dim-witted response from the EcoLoon was delicious.
Click to expand...
This is the crux of his argument:

It is IMPOSSIBLE for the air to transfer energy to our cubic meter of Earth, raising it by 1K with conduction, unless the parcel of air is ~1400 K greater. That's approaching a temperature that can melt metals, never mind your face.

The math was basic physics equations. College should be all about banging coeds but some people learned something when they couldn't get laid.
 
Last edited:
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Its very much like your posts except it has some equations in it. I'm sure you understood it one bit.
Click to expand...
He said air does not heat earth...

And then he proved it mathematically.

What else is there to understand? Simple physics....
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
The Big Ol' Tearing Down of the Greenhouse Wall, Part Deux :
Proof that Climastrology worships the Great Pumpkin, and it's fucking rotten!

What follows is a derivation of what the temperature of the globe would be sans atmosphere which will unsettle the foundation of the climastrologists' pseudo-science. It is the hole in the head which makes essentially all of their work moot, and demonstrates why feeding them more money is utterly stupid.

Climastrology claims that without an atmosphere, the Earth's "average temperature" (whatever the fuck that is) would be 255K (-18degC), and that because the Greenhouse Effect exists (which it doesn't) our glorious Garden of Eden temp is 288K (+15degC). This implies that the atmosphere is somehow adding thermal energy into the system. Now earlier, in the so-called "bullshit post", it was demonstrated that the air cannot conduct thermal energy into the surface, except under unnatural or artifcial conditions; therefore, the atmospheric gases only served to COOL the surface of the Earth.

That is, they provide a conduit by which thermal energy could be dumped back into space, using the other modes of transfer (convection and--ultimately--radiation beyond the Tropopause), along with conduction. It was not a strawman despite the protest of a disrespectful MistyCanine, but rather a foundation. The root of it being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which stipulates thermal energy will flow from higher density energy states (as in solids, liquids) to lower density states (in gases) towards seeking the most probable macrostate (i.e. equilibrium). i.e. dS/dt >=0

To begin, certain elements must be defined. They are all accepted by climastrology AFAIK, and I have no reason to deny their use since they are reasonable under the dicta of Physics.

, being Temperature of the Sun, Radius of the Sun, distance to Earth, and albedo of the Earth, respectively.

Now the great Stefan-Boltzmann equation must be applied to find power per unit area (SB) of the Sun.

, where I have used the value of sigma (i.e. the Stefan-Boltzmann "constant") that my calculator states, although it is not exactly a constant for reasons beyond the scope of this analysis (see Reif's, or Schroeder's texts for more info). However, it is "close enough" and the range is not an impediment for the sake of analysis.

Then, we can find what the power (or Luminosity) will be by simply multiplying over the surface area of Sol,



However, we want to know what is hitting the Earth, right? Well thanks to the genius of Maxwell IIRC, we can calculate the flux at the surface which arises from a sphere whose radius is equal to the distance to Earth,

...well, what do you know? It's the "solar constant" ! :lol:

Anyway, so far, so good...so what ! This is where Climastrology departs from logic. What those wizards of dumb do next is improperly apply further iterations of the StefBo equation to arrive at the bizarre value of 255 K for their version of an atmosphereless Earth. I will now apply it more correctly to demonstrate the more correct value. If you don't have your helmets fastened, I would suggest strapping them on now, oh AGW dweebs of RIU! No smoking during take-off, either, unless you have an Oz ready for the pilot!

First, we need to ask, "what is happening?" At this distance, the wave-front of energy (i.e. photons or Huygens wavelets) can be approximated by a plane-wave, because it's HYUUUJE! Furthermore, this energy is coming into contact with a hemisphere, not the whole sphere (in case you didn't notice, the sun doesn't shine at night...DUH!) This is the great mistake climastrologists make when fumbling through the equations. Admittedly, they aren't alone. I am staring at Schroeder's text, and he even makes the same mistake. There is a factor of 4 being applied incorrectly (and unphysically, for that matter) which outputs the incorrect value. So in order to correct this, the proper geometry must be considered when applying the Conservation of Energy with respect to the balancing of the absorbed and emitted equations.



:shock: Geee...that's a far fucking cry from -15degC :lol:
In fact, it's a lot fucking hotter than what we have to put up with on Earth! Great googly moogly, the desert doesn't even get that hot! What's funnier still, is that value is likely TOO LOW!
How can one question that? Look at the moon, the place where all this shit started 120 years ago with Langley's Bolometer data (which Arrhenius fucked up in using when crafting his BS).
Peak temperature manages to hit ~396K (123degC) !!! I wouldn't recommend wearing your aluminum flip-flops during noon-time on the equator, eh. :lol:
Another reason it may be too low is the albedo applied. If one uses the value determined earlier for an "average" parcel of earth, it would spit out a value of ~381K (108degC).

Another thing to keep in mind is the nature of the equations used. They describe INSTANTANEOUS energy conditions. If one wants to muddle around with retained energy, it becomes a question of the Heat Transfer physics like in the prior post. Totally different rules there, even though related to temperature. If one were to look down at the North pole with incident radiation coming in at 12 o'clock, the thermal profile would peak around 10 on the clock face, and dwindle off into the radiative night (keep in mind this "clock" runs backwards from this perspective).

So the question remains, what does this do to the GH theory? Well...it essentially kills it. There is no Greenhouse...there is no super back-radiation "heating" the planet...it is all nonsense built on BULLSHIT! Maybe even some Horseshit scraped from a floor in a Wendy's bathroom.

You fools are glibly throwing money at the Easter Bunny and expecting me to pay for it with Carbon taxes and other crap. At the same time, your solutions generally consist of bullying other economies into submission telling them they can't make progress with energy generation because "CARBON".

Idiots. In some ways, I hope PRUMT! gets in because of it all. Who knows what Col Sanders will do, despite the fact I am sympathetic to his other political stances. He seems pretty militant over this crap.

Now I could go on to dismantle the back-radiation story of Trenberth et al., which breaks the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, but what for? If you can't see how screwed up it is from what has been presented, you are probably not going to be convinced otherwise, even with experimental data to prove it! (and it is out there...I finally found it)

Anyway, enjoy the fact the atmosphere helps to cool the planet so you don't have to deal with a truly blistering summer. And keep feeding your plants that delicious CO2 ! It actually helps cool things faster due to its low emissivity! Don't worry about the oceans either, they can handle the 0.02 shift in pH :lol:

Good night, y'all. ;) And don't let them EVER tell you the "science is settled".
It's only settled in their unreal, statistically modelled delusions.

 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
Climastrology claims that without an atmosphere, the Earth's "average temperature" (whatever the fuck that is) would be 255K (-18degC), and that because the Greenhouse Effect exists (which it doesn't) our glorious Garden of Eden temp is 288K (+15degC). This implies that the atmosphere is somehow adding thermal energy into the system. Now earlier, in the so-called "bullshit post", it was demonstrated that the air cannot conduct thermal energy into the surface, except under unnatural or artifcial conditions; therefore, the atmospheric gases only served to COOL the surface of the Earth.
Click to expand...
Do you understand the denial of the greenhouse effect is on par with the denial of gravity, the theory of evolution, the moon landings, ect.?
 
Rrog

Rrog

Well-Known Member
Exactly Padawan. I'm comforted by the fact that global academics have been researching, attending symposiums, and peer reviewing this data with the best equipment and resources. I'm comforted they have overwhelming consensus.

The rest is someone wanting attention and to have their ego fed. That's about all that is
 
OddBall1st

OddBall1st

Well-Known Member
It`s here again, that damn Polar vortex,....third year in a row this new term has had to be used.

New England is good for at least two or three Artic Blast fronts every winter.

The point of this whole story is to let the reader know that Polar vortex is now the term and not Artic Blast.


At this point anyone that believes the Global warming condition or wants to refer to it as Climate change,.. Your College money was wasted, as was your time, seek a new job, get a life,.....

You can`t read this story with any kind of seriousness at all,


http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/polar-vortex-drives-bitter-cold-into-central-eastern-us/ar-BBpsqBm?li=BBnb7Kz

Shirley, you can`t possibly be favoring these reports.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
OddBall1st said:
It`s here again, that damn Polar vortex,....third year in a row this new term has had to be used.

New England is good for at least two or three Artic Blast fronts every winter.

The point of this whole story is to let the reader know that Polar vortex is now the term and not Artic Blast.


At this point anyone that believes the Global warming condition or wants to refer to it as Climate change,.. Your College money was wasted, as was your time, seek a new job, get a life,.....

You can`t read this story with any kind of seriousness at all,


http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/polar-vortex-drives-bitter-cold-into-central-eastern-us/ar-BBpsqBm?li=BBnb7Kz

Shirley, you can`t possibly be favoring these reports.
Click to expand...
So years later and you still haven't learned the difference between climate and weather, huh?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
The Big Ol' Tearing Down of the Greenhouse Wall, Part Deux :
Proof that Climastrology worships the Great Pumpkin, and it's fucking rotten!

What follows is a derivation of what the temperature of the globe would be sans atmosphere which will unsettle the foundation of the climastrologists' pseudo-science. It is the hole in the head which makes essentially all of their work moot, and demonstrates why feeding them more money is utterly stupid.

Climastrology claims that without an atmosphere, the Earth's "average temperature" (whatever the fuck that is) would be 255K (-18degC), and that because the Greenhouse Effect exists (which it doesn't) our glorious Garden of Eden temp is 288K (+15degC). This implies that the atmosphere is somehow adding thermal energy into the system. Now earlier, in the so-called "bullshit post", it was demonstrated that the air cannot conduct thermal energy into the surface, except under unnatural or artifcial conditions; therefore, the atmospheric gases only served to COOL the surface of the Earth.

That is, they provide a conduit by which thermal energy could be dumped back into space, using the other modes of transfer (convection and--ultimately--radiation beyond the Tropopause), along with conduction. It was not a strawman despite the protest of a disrespectful MistyCanine, but rather a foundation. The root of it being the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which stipulates thermal energy will flow from higher density energy states (as in solids, liquids) to lower density states (in gases) towards seeking the most probable macrostate (i.e. equilibrium). i.e. dS/dt >=0

To begin, certain elements must be defined. They are all accepted by climastrology AFAIK, and I have no reason to deny their use since they are reasonable under the dicta of Physics.

, being Temperature of the Sun, Radius of the Sun, distance to Earth, and albedo of the Earth, respectively.

Now the great Stefan-Boltzmann equation must be applied to find power per unit area (SB) of the Sun.

, where I have used the value of sigma (i.e. the Stefan-Boltzmann "constant") that my calculator states, although it is not exactly a constant for reasons beyond the scope of this analysis (see Reif's, or Schroeder's texts for more info). However, it is "close enough" and the range is not an impediment for the sake of analysis.

Then, we can find what the power (or Luminosity) will be by simply multiplying over the surface area of Sol,



However, we want to know what is hitting the Earth, right? Well thanks to the genius of Maxwell IIRC, we can calculate the flux at the surface which arises from a sphere whose radius is equal to the distance to Earth,

...well, what do you know? It's the "solar constant" ! :lol:

Anyway, so far, so good...so what ! This is where Climastrology departs from logic. What those wizards of dumb do next is improperly apply further iterations of the StefBo equation to arrive at the bizarre value of 255 K for their version of an atmosphereless Earth. I will now apply it more correctly to demonstrate the more correct value. If you don't have your helmets fastened, I would suggest strapping them on now, oh AGW dweebs of RIU! No smoking during take-off, either, unless you have an Oz ready for the pilot!

First, we need to ask, "what is happening?" At this distance, the wave-front of energy (i.e. photons or Huygens wavelets) can be approximated by a plane-wave, because it's HYUUUJE! Furthermore, this energy is coming into contact with a hemisphere, not the whole sphere (in case you didn't notice, the sun doesn't shine at night...DUH!) This is the great mistake climastrologists make when fumbling through the equations. Admittedly, they aren't alone. I am staring at Schroeder's text, and he even makes the same mistake. There is a factor of 4 being applied incorrectly (and unphysically, for that matter) which outputs the incorrect value. So in order to correct this, the proper geometry must be considered when applying the Conservation of Energy with respect to the balancing of the absorbed and emitted equations.



Edit: text below this was deleted in order to fit my reply to RIU text constraints. See Heckler's original message if you want to read more of his diatribe.
Click to expand...
Umm, you made a couple of errors in your calculation, here are the very basic errors that I see in your calculation.

error 1: The sun's radiation strikes the earth at an angle the farther we get away from the equator thus reducing energy flux at the surface as we get farther away from the equator. A valid simplification is to treat the sun as shining at directly onto a disk with the radius equal to the earth's.

The area of a disk is pi*r^2; your hemisphere is 2*pi*r^2 but the sun doesn't uniformly irradiate the entire surface area of the hemisphere. Hence my correction in the equation below.



error 2: While the earth is a hemisphere relative to input energy from the sun, it is a sphere in terms of emitted radiation. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. Why you assume only half the earth radiates heat might bear an explanation? Its counter to anything that I've ever read but you might have something there?

correcting your equation returns us to the original estimate of -18 C surface temp of earth if there were no atmosphere.
upload_2016-2-13_15-2-7.png

Seems that science denial isn't all its cracked up to be.

Thanks for the really fun dialogue. I'm enjoying this. I've never really understood AGW denial. I still don't. But look forward to more dialogue.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top