| So there is no greenhouse effect, and I can prove it .. what to do next?25-04-2017 07:30 |
Leitwolf★☆☆☆☆
(117) |
Ok, to be more precise, I can handily falsify the theory of a so called GHE, but more importantly, I can perfectly explain why earth is just as warm as it is - without "greenhouse gases". It is simple and incredibly logic. But even more incredibly, no one seemed to have brought the argument forward so far.
I will skip the part of falsifying the GHE as such, which is intersting enough but relatively meaningless by comparison to the other things I have done. I have already posted the corner stones of the theory here..
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/emissivity-of-the-ocean-d6-e1342.php
and here..
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/clouds-and-nocturnal-cooling-d6-e1366.php
There were yet some flaws in it all, and I had to through a couple details. Now that it is sorted out, it is looking more solid than ever. Of course I should add, that I have been into this only for a couple of weeks, which is not much time to overtake thousands of scientists earning their life on this subject. But given my intellectual superiority, I never had doubt to possibly do better than all of them.
Of course I wanted to put my theory to the test, which is why I exposed parts of it here. As to be expected there was not much wise response but rather some typical troll behaviour. I am well aware how (intellectual) babies will always be afraid of strangers and even more so of theories and concepts they have not heard of yet. Sorry, I can not take much regard on that.
I also sent a copy of the whole story to Mr. Christopher Keating, the guy who once put up a reward of 30.000$ for proving climate change was not real. There was a time limit for that, and no I did not ask him for money. Rather I wanted him to challenge my theory, and he failed miserably.
Mainly he critizised me for being so vain to think I could be smarter than all the experts. When I responded that I was simply a genius by my IQ and could naturally do such things, he responded "An IQ is merely a measure of how well you learn". Which is probably the reason why Mr. Keating "knowing it all" will not need one
Anyhow. The truth is out there. The qestion is what to do next. I hear a lot about oil industry sponsored climate change deniers. So far not a single dollar made it onto my account. Which is somewhat ironic, as I can most definitely settle the science.
As named above, the ocean is putting earth to about 286K, while clouds heat the planet by an additional 4K (+/-3). Continents will play a negicible role in all that.
I will try to attach the latest findings on clouds to this post. Yet, the question is what to do with all the evidence which will anihilate the fairy taile of global warming. Reasonable suggestions will be welcome. |
| 25-04-2017 13:58 |
IBdaMann ★★★★★
(14416) |
Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, to be more precise, I can handily falsify the theory of a so called GHE, but more importantly, I can perfectly explain why earth is just as warm as it is - without "greenhouse gases".
Yes, it is perfectly logical.
You are dealing with religiously motivated zealots who have heavy personal identity investments in a cult. Warmizombies are not permitted to "understand" the science you mention.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 25-04-2017 16:34 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
The obvious thing to do would be to write a clear and complete description of what you have done together with the reasoning that leads you to your conclusions. Then post it (or a link to it) here so that we can read it and offer our opinions. |
| 25-04-2017 17:17 |
Leitwolf★☆☆☆☆
(117) |
Does anyone know how the "Attachment" part works? I can select a file, but there is no way it will upload. |
| 25-04-2017 17:21 |
Leitwolf★☆☆☆☆
(117) |
Another try...
Attached file:
clouds.doc |
|
| 25-04-2017 18:06 |
IBdaMann★★★★★
(14416) |
Leitwolf wrote:
Another try...
Leitwolf, the first words are "What is the role of clouds on climate?"
What is "climate"? The paper doesn't say. I don't see any reason to read the paper.
.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 25-04-2017 18:33 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
You really should give references to show the source of any data you use, especially if it differs from the commonly accepted values.
Edit: Kudos, by the way, for actually supporting your opinions with argument rather than engaging in the glassy-eyed denial that is more typical of this site.
Edited on 25-04-2017 19:02 |
| 25-04-2017 18:50 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Leitwolf wrote:
Another try...
Your paper is interesting and I will get deeper into it but firstly you have to specify high altitude clouds and low. They both have reverse effects.
The effects depend on the atmospheric density. |
| 25-04-2017 21:13 |
Leitwolf★☆☆☆☆
(117) |
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places. |
| 25-04-2017 22:39 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places.
You should be using the distance from the centre, not the surface, of the sun. This is because the intensity of the radiation at the surface of a sphere centred on the sun depends only on the radius of that sphere and the total power output of the sun (not the distance of the surface of that sphere from the surface of the sun). This gives a difference of about 2.3 Wm-2 between your and NASA's figure.
Also, the sun, while a close approximation to a black body, is not a perfect black body, and so radiates a little less than a perfect black body would. This, presumably, accounts for the remaining couple of Wm-2.
Not to worry though, I'll look at some more of your paper in a bit. |
| 26-04-2017 00:23 |
Leitwolf★☆☆☆☆
(117) |
LOL .. we are getting a bit philosophical here. Just because this little factor is usually being ignored, does not mean it would not exist. What for instance, if there was a satellite orbiting sun in extreme vicinity, just like a satellite orbiting earth in LEO.
Then, the sun would cover almost 50% of the satellite's "sky", and not just 12.9%, which was true if the sun was a disc at the distance to it's center. Apparently the formula would yield a massive error in this scenario, and even my correction factor would hardly fix it.
However, I completely agree the sun will not emit like a PBB. And since nobody ever has put a thermometer onto it's surface, we do not really know how hot it is there. All we can do is to measure emissions, and derive some temperature from that, assuming a certain emissivity, which will be 1, for the sake of simplicity.
After all, nothing of that is pivotal to my theory. |
| 26-04-2017 00:52 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Leitwolf wrote:
LOL .. we are getting a bit philosophical here. Just because this little factor is usually being ignored, does not mean it would not exist. What for instance, if there was a satellite orbiting sun in extreme vicinity, just like a satellite orbiting earth in LEO.
Then, the sun would cover almost 50% of the satellite's "sky", and not just 12.9%, which was true if the sun was a disc at the distance to it's center. Apparently the formula would yield a massive error in this scenario, and even my correction factor would hardly fix it.
Your "correction factor" is nothing of the sort; you're simply using the wrong distance.
Think about your satellite orbiting close to the surface of the sun. Using your formula, the radiation intensity at the satellite would tend to infinity as the distance above the sun's surface tended towards zero. This is clearly wrong. Using the correct formula (with distance from the sun's centre), the radiation at the satellite would tend towards the radiation intensity at the sun's surface as the distance of the satellite above the sun's surface tended towards zero, as you'd expect.
Edit: It's true that geometric effects would mean that it would no longer be valid to treat the Earth as a flat disk for the purpose of determining the amount of radiation intercepted if it were very close to the sun, but that's a different thing. It means that you'd no longer be able to use the simple factor of 4 in the formula.
Edited on 26-04-2017 01:32 |
| 26-04-2017 01:07 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
LOL .. we are getting a bit philosophical here. Just because this little factor is usually being ignored, does not mean it would not exist. What for instance, if there was a satellite orbiting sun in extreme vicinity, just like a satellite orbiting earth in LEO.
Then, the sun would cover almost 50% of the satellite's "sky", and not just 12.9%, which was true if the sun was a disc at the distance to it's center. Apparently the formula would yield a massive error in this scenario, and even my correction factor would hardly fix it.
Your "correction factor" is nothing of the sort; you're simply using the wrong distance.
Think about your satellite orbiting close to the surface of the sun. Using your formula, the radiation intensity at the satellite would tend to infinity as the distance above the sun's surface tended towards zero. This is clearly wrong. Using the correct formula (with distance from the sun's centre), the radiation at the satellite would tend towards the radiation intensity at the sun's surface as the distance of the satellite above the sun's surface tended towards zero, as you'd expect.
Another nutcase comment. So you're saying that the Sun's emissions tend to infinity in the exact center of the Sun. |
| 26-04-2017 01:25 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
LOL .. we are getting a bit philosophical here. Just because this little factor is usually being ignored, does not mean it would not exist. What for instance, if there was a satellite orbiting sun in extreme vicinity, just like a satellite orbiting earth in LEO.
Then, the sun would cover almost 50% of the satellite's "sky", and not just 12.9%, which was true if the sun was a disc at the distance to it's center. Apparently the formula would yield a massive error in this scenario, and even my correction factor would hardly fix it.
Your "correction factor" is nothing of the sort; you're simply using the wrong distance.
Think about your satellite orbiting close to the surface of the sun. Using your formula, the radiation intensity at the satellite would tend to infinity as the distance above the sun's surface tended towards zero. This is clearly wrong. Using the correct formula (with distance from the sun's centre), the radiation at the satellite would tend towards the radiation intensity at the sun's surface as the distance of the satellite above the sun's surface tended towards zero, as you'd expect.
Another nutcase comment. So you're saying that the Sun's emissions tend to infinity in the exact center of the Sun.
No, because the formula is only valid above the surface of the sun. A sphere less than the size of the sun wouldn't contain all the radiation-emitting matter of the sun. |
| 26-04-2017 04:21 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, to be more precise, I can handily falsify the theory of a so called GHE, but more importantly, I can perfectly explain why earth is just as warm as it is - without "greenhouse gases". It is simple and incredibly logic. But even more incredibly, no one seemed to have brought the argument forward so far.
I will skip the part of falsifying the GHE as such, which is intersting enough but relatively meaningless by comparison to the other things I have done. I have already posted the corner stones of the theory here..
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/emissivity-of-the-ocean-d6-e1342.php
and here..
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/clouds-and-nocturnal-cooling-d6-e1366.php
There were yet some flaws in it all, and I had to through a couple details. Now that it is sorted out, it is looking more solid than ever. Of course I should add, that I have been into this only for a couple of weeks, which is not much time to overtake thousands of scientists earning their life on this subject. But given my intellectual superiority, I never had doubt to possibly do better than all of them.
Of course I wanted to put my theory to the test, which is why I exposed parts of it here. As to be expected there was not much wise response but rather some typical troll behaviour. I am well aware how (intellectual) babies will always be afraid of strangers and even more so of theories and concepts they have not heard of yet. Sorry, I can not take much regard on that.
I also sent a copy of the whole story to Mr. Christopher Keating, the guy who once put up a reward of 30.000$ for proving climate change was not real. There was a time limit for that, and no I did not ask him for money. Rather I wanted him to challenge my theory, and he failed miserably.
Mainly he critizised me for being so vain to think I could be smarter than all the experts. When I responded that I was simply a genius by my IQ and could naturally do such things, he responded "An IQ is merely a measure of how well you learn". Which is probably the reason why Mr. Keating "knowing it all" will not need one
Anyhow. The truth is out there. The qestion is what to do next. I hear a lot about oil industry sponsored climate change deniers. So far not a single dollar made it onto my account. Which is somewhat ironic, as I can most definitely settle the science.
As named above, the ocean is putting earth to about 286K, while clouds heat the planet by an additional 4K (+/-3). Continents will play a negicible role in all that.
I will try to attach the latest findings on clouds to this post. Yet, the question is what to do with all the evidence which will anihilate the fairy taile of global warming. Reasonable suggestions will be welcome.
The answer to your question is do what we have always done, adapt. |
|
| 26-04-2017 17:07 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places.
You here (and apparently in your paper as well) have a problem of thinking faster than you're writing.
I tried going through the numbers and couldn't follow your logic though I understand what you're saying.
You write things like "tun" when you mean the radius of the Earth. (A tun is a wine cask - been at the juice have you?)
While dumbass "surface defect" is inventing new physics it appears that you are simply calculating the size of the sun's emissions on a square km around the equator and then using the clouds in some manner to calculate the actual heat loss via reflection and that saved via the blanketing effect of lower level clouds.
But you need to write your paper so that each component of your calculations are clearly written.
This isn't your error alone. Many if not most papers are written in this manner in which they expect their papers to only be presented to "peers" who may or may not know the terms being used. Apparently anyone that wouldn't understand the term isn't a peer worthy of the name. At least you are making a shot at it. |
| 26-04-2017 17:45 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places.
You write things like "tun" when you mean the radius of the Earth. (A tun is a wine cask - been at the juice have you?)
It's just a typo for "sun", you utter fool. Or do you really think the Earth has a radius of 696,357 km? |
| 26-04-2017 18:08 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places.
You write things like "tun" when you mean the radius of the Earth. (A tun is a wine cask - been at the juice have you?)
It's just a typo for "sun", you utter fool. Or do you really think the Earth has a radius of 696,357 km?
My error. But for someone as stupid as you perhaps you should know that the radius of the Sun is 695,700.1 km. If you're going to call someone else a fool you should not show yourself as one. But that is your usual means of communication. |
| 26-04-2017 18:36 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places.
You write things like "tun" when you mean the radius of the Earth. (A tun is a wine cask - been at the juice have you?)
It's just a typo for "sun", you utter fool. Or do you really think the Earth has a radius of 696,357 km?
My error. But for someone as stupid as you perhaps you should know that the radius of the Sun is 695,700.1 km. If you're going to call someone else a fool you should not show yourself as one. But that is your usual means of communication.
Actually, both figures, while approximately correct, show a degree of spurious accuracy. The figure typically given is 695,700 km, indicating an accuracy of about +/- 100 km.
I suspect that Leifwolf has used a figure that may have been converted from miles using an insufficiently accurate conversion factor, and has then used whatever digits appeared on his calculator.
Heaven only knows where you get 695,700.1 km from. Did you mistake a reference superscript for part of the number, or something? |
| 26-04-2017 19:01 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places.
You write things like "tun" when you mean the radius of the Earth. (A tun is a wine cask - been at the juice have you?)
It's just a typo for "sun", you utter fool. Or do you really think the Earth has a radius of 696,357 km?
My error. But for someone as stupid as you perhaps you should know that the radius of the Sun is 695,700.1 km. If you're going to call someone else a fool you should not show yourself as one. But that is your usual means of communication.
Actually, both figures, while approximately correct, show a degree of spurious accuracy. The figure typically given is 695,700 km, indicating an accuracy of about +/- 100 km.
I suspect that Leifwolf has used a figure that may have been converted from miles using an insufficiently accurate conversion factor, and has then used whatever digits appeared on his calculator.
Heaven only knows where you get 695,700.1 km from. Did you mistake a reference superscript for part of the number, or something?
Yet another excuse for you to argue with anyone that doesn't follow your religion. I actually expect that as the weather patterns begin cooling that you and your Church of the Holy Climate Change mates will become terrorists. |
| 26-04-2017 19:06 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places.
You write things like "tun" when you mean the radius of the Earth. (A tun is a wine cask - been at the juice have you?)
It's just a typo for "sun", you utter fool. Or do you really think the Earth has a radius of 696,357 km?
My error. But for someone as stupid as you perhaps you should know that the radius of the Sun is 695,700.1 km. If you're going to call someone else a fool you should not show yourself as one. But that is your usual means of communication.
Actually, both figures, while approximately correct, show a degree of spurious accuracy. The figure typically given is 695,700 km, indicating an accuracy of about +/- 100 km.
I suspect that Leifwolf has used a figure that may have been converted from miles using an insufficiently accurate conversion factor, and has then used whatever digits appeared on his calculator.
Heaven only knows where you get 695,700.1 km from. Did you mistake a reference superscript for part of the number, or something?
Yet another excuse for you to argue with anyone that doesn't follow your religion. I actually expect that as the weather patterns begin cooling that you and your Church of the Holy Climate Change mates will become terrorists.
We're talking about figures for the radius of the sun, and you randomly start going on about terrorists. Are you actually incapable of holding a rational discussion? |
| 26-04-2017 19:16 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places.
You write things like "tun" when you mean the radius of the Earth. (A tun is a wine cask - been at the juice have you?)
It's just a typo for "sun", you utter fool. Or do you really think the Earth has a radius of 696,357 km?
My error. But for someone as stupid as you perhaps you should know that the radius of the Sun is 695,700.1 km. If you're going to call someone else a fool you should not show yourself as one. But that is your usual means of communication.
Actually, both figures, while approximately correct, show a degree of spurious accuracy. The figure typically given is 695,700 km, indicating an accuracy of about +/- 100 km.
I suspect that Leifwolf has used a figure that may have been converted from miles using an insufficiently accurate conversion factor, and has then used whatever digits appeared on his calculator.
Heaven only knows where you get 695,700.1 km from. Did you mistake a reference superscript for part of the number, or something?
Yet another excuse for you to argue with anyone that doesn't follow your religion. I actually expect that as the weather patterns begin cooling that you and your Church of the Holy Climate Change mates will become terrorists.
We're talking about figures for the radius of the sun, and you randomly start going on about terrorists. Are you actually incapable of holding a rational discussion?
No we weren't talking about anything of value. You were looking for ANY reason to argue against anything you suppose to be against your religion. |
| 26-04-2017 19:19 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
OK, my first question would be be: Where are you getting your figures from?
For example, you state that
Every square meter of earth receives about 344W of solar radiation.
According to NASA, though, the figure is 340.4W. Where did you get 344W from?
This is not a big mystery.
((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 4 * PI * 696.357E+06^2) / (4 * PI * 1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = ((5.67E-08 * 5778^4 * 696.357E+06^2) / (1.491E+11^2)) / 4 = 344.6W/m2
I just tried to be as precise as possible with that figure. With..
5778K surface temperature of the sun
696,357 km radius of the tun
149.1 Bio. km for the distance of earth from the surface(!) of the sun (which is 149.6 - 0.5). 0.5 again is an approximation of 0.696 / 2^0.5
So .. well I possibly should have put it to 344.6 rather than 344 right away. The chapter on clouds however is just a part of something bigger, which is why I do not explain certain things which I have discussed in other places.
You write things like "tun" when you mean the radius of the Earth. (A tun is a wine cask - been at the juice have you?)
It's just a typo for "sun", you utter fool. Or do you really think the Earth has a radius of 696,357 km?
My error. But for someone as stupid as you perhaps you should know that the radius of the Sun is 695,700.1 km. If you're going to call someone else a fool you should not show yourself as one. But that is your usual means of communication.
Actually, both figures, while approximately correct, show a degree of spurious accuracy. The figure typically given is 695,700 km, indicating an accuracy of about +/- 100 km.
I suspect that Leifwolf has used a figure that may have been converted from miles using an insufficiently accurate conversion factor, and has then used whatever digits appeared on his calculator.
Heaven only knows where you get 695,700.1 km from. Did you mistake a reference superscript for part of the number, or something?
Yet another excuse for you to argue with anyone that doesn't follow your religion. I actually expect that as the weather patterns begin cooling that you and your Church of the Holy Climate Change mates will become terrorists.
We're talking about figures for the radius of the sun, and you randomly start going on about terrorists. Are you actually incapable of holding a rational discussion?
No we weren't talking about anything of value. You were looking for ANY reason to argue against anything you suppose to be against your religion.
So where did you get 695,700.1 km from? Didn't you notice what an absurd figure it is? Where's your scientific common sense? |
| 26-04-2017 19:28 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
No we weren't talking about anything of value. You were looking for ANY reason to argue against anything you suppose to be against your religion.
So where did you get 695,700.1 km from? Didn't you notice what an absurd figure it is? Where's your scientific common sense?
Case proven and closed. |
| 26-04-2017 19:39 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
No we weren't talking about anything of value. You were looking for ANY reason to argue against anything you suppose to be against your religion.
So where did you get 695,700.1 km from? Didn't you notice what an absurd figure it is? Where's your scientific common sense?
Case proven and closed.
So you refuse to say where you got the figure from. Yet you expect to be taken seriously? The entire point of scientific writing is to show as clearly as possible how you obtained some result or conclusion. Nobody is taken at their word; this is what makes scientific investigation such a robust process. Refusal to reveal sources for data is simply incompatible with the scientific method. |
| 26-04-2017 19:58 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Leitwolf wrote:
LOL .. we are getting a bit philosophical here. Just because this little factor is usually being ignored, does not mean it would not exist. What for instance, if there was a satellite orbiting sun in extreme vicinity, just like a satellite orbiting earth in LEO.
Then, the sun would cover almost 50% of the satellite's "sky", and not just 12.9%, which was true if the sun was a disc at the distance to it's center. Apparently the formula would yield a massive error in this scenario, and even my correction factor would hardly fix it.
However, I completely agree the sun will not emit like a PBB. And since nobody ever has put a thermometer onto it's surface, we do not really know how hot it is there. All we can do is to measure emissions, and derive some temperature from that, assuming a certain emissivity, which will be 1, for the sake of simplicity.
After all, nothing of that is pivotal to my theory.
I realize that it's almost impossible to find anything among the garbage that Surface Defect is writing in an attempt to block any communications with you but again my advice is to please make your explanations and calculations as clearly as possible. Again, like many others you appear to be thinking faster than you are typing and it all becomes confused.
In an attempt to make these conversations more clear I suggest we all stop responding to Surface Defect and Spot entirely. They are now in the business of stopping communications and discussion and not in adding anything of value. |
| 26-04-2017 20:03 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Wake wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
LOL .. we are getting a bit philosophical here. Just because this little factor is usually being ignored, does not mean it would not exist. What for instance, if there was a satellite orbiting sun in extreme vicinity, just like a satellite orbiting earth in LEO.
Then, the sun would cover almost 50% of the satellite's "sky", and not just 12.9%, which was true if the sun was a disc at the distance to it's center. Apparently the formula would yield a massive error in this scenario, and even my correction factor would hardly fix it.
However, I completely agree the sun will not emit like a PBB. And since nobody ever has put a thermometer onto it's surface, we do not really know how hot it is there. All we can do is to measure emissions, and derive some temperature from that, assuming a certain emissivity, which will be 1, for the sake of simplicity.
After all, nothing of that is pivotal to my theory.
I realize that it's almost impossible to find anything among the garbage that Surface Defect is writing in an attempt to block any communications with you but again my advice is to please make your explanations and calculations as clearly as possible. Again, like many others you appear to be thinking faster than you are typing and it all becomes confused.
In an attempt to make these conversations more clear I suggest we all stop responding to Surface Defect and Spot entirely. They are now in the business of stopping communications and discussion and not in adding anything of value.
Oh, the irony. |
| 26-04-2017 22:29 |
Leitwolf★☆☆☆☆
(117) |
Oh boys...
 |
| 27-04-2017 02:27 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Leitwolf, as far as I can tell, you are essentially claiming that IPCC is lying on the basis of your disagreement with a quoted (but unreferenced) section of a Wikipedia article. That doesn't make a whole load of sense to me. How can you accuse someone of lying on the basis of something that someone else wrote? |
| 27-04-2017 03:59 |
Frescomexico★★☆☆☆
(179) |
I eagerly look forward to your debunking the greenhouse effect theory. So far you haven't. But I intuitively believe that mankind has not reached the point where it, even inadvertently, can change our global temperatures, cause the waters to rise, and force all of us to radically change our lifestyles. I don't know what my IQ is but I have been confronted with evidence and/or opinions from both sides of the debate, and I have trouble sorting it out. The pro-AGW gang point to their (irrelevant) large numbers and seem to be excessively arrogant in their presentations. The con-AGW gang seem to be (also irrelevantly) less numerous and less arrogant, but equally confident. In fact you are the first con-AGW presenter I have known to strut around with your tail feathers spread, a forgivable trate if you're right. Let's see your proof. |
|
| 27-04-2017 10:24 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Frescomexico wrote:
I eagerly look forward to your debunking the greenhouse effect theory. So far you haven't. But I intuitively believe that mankind has not reached the point where it, even inadvertently, can change our global temperatures, cause the waters to rise, and force all of us to radically change our lifestyles. I don't know what my IQ is but I have been confronted with evidence and/or opinions from both sides of the debate, and I have trouble sorting it out. The pro-AGW gang point to their (irrelevant) large numbers and seem to be excessively arrogant in their presentations. The con-AGW gang seem to be (also irrelevantly) less numerous and less arrogant, but equally confident. In fact you are the first con-AGW presenter I have known to strut around with your tail feathers spread, a forgivable trate if you're right. Let's see your proof.
An argument that is based on numbers and facts that have been determined by measurement and calculation is a scientific argument. An argument that is based on intuition and the perceived personalities of its proponents is, essentially, religious. Personally, I believe that scientific arguments are likely to serve us better than religious arguments.
P.S. Leitwolf has already set out his argument in the document titled "clouds.doc" that he linked to earlier in the thread. I don't see that it in any way disproves AGW, but YMMV.
Edited on 27-04-2017 10:27 |
| 27-04-2017 17:29 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Frescomexico wrote:
I eagerly look forward to your debunking the greenhouse effect theory. So far you haven't. But I intuitively believe that mankind has not reached the point where it, even inadvertently, can change our global temperatures, cause the waters to rise, and force all of us to radically change our lifestyles. I don't know what my IQ is but I have been confronted with evidence and/or opinions from both sides of the debate, and I have trouble sorting it out. The pro-AGW gang point to their (irrelevant) large numbers and seem to be excessively arrogant in their presentations. The con-AGW gang seem to be (also irrelevantly) less numerous and less arrogant, but equally confident. In fact you are the first con-AGW presenter I have known to strut around with your tail feathers spread, a forgivable trate if you're right. Let's see your proof.
I don't know to whom this is addressed and hence what you are talking about.
There is no question that the question of consensus is a dead duck because it was a lie from the very start.
As to warming - it is going to be warm here at the end of the week - does that prove that we're all going to die? At what point and in what manner will any scientific evidence prove anything at all to the True Believers?
NOAA claims: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/images/no%20slow%20down%20in%20global%20warming.jpg
Direct satellite measurements: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg
This data shows not that there was purposeful fraud by NOAA but that they at least made some pretty sizeable errors in their calculations.
Since most of the places that there are good temperature records are in areas in which there was very large urban growth and hence very large temperature increases because of that growth all it would require to show these plots that Obama demanded of them was to not correctly correct for these urban temperature increases. |
| 27-04-2017 21:43 |
Leitwolf★☆☆☆☆
(117) |
@surface detail
Well I have a tendency to skip the insigificant parts in order to concentrate on the subjects which actually matter. The IPCC has indeed claimed these figures, as this report (page 79) shows.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Next, you yourself referenced to a later IPCC report, where the cooling by clouds was even more exagerated, that is -50W/m2 vs. +30W/m2.
Surface Detail wrote:
Actually, the overall effect of clouds is to cool the planet since the albedo effect of -50 Wm-2 (reflecting sunlight back into space) outweighs their greenhouse effect (radiating IR back to Earth) of +30 Wm-2. It is thought that clouds will contribute a slightly positive feedback as the planet warms (the increase in greenhouse effect greater than the increase in albedo effect), though there is still considerably uncertainty about this.
The chapter from the 2013 IPCC Report dealing with clouds and aerosols can be found here: Clouds and Aerosols
So I will doubt you would not be aware of the IPCCs position. |
| 27-04-2017 23:36 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Leitwolf wrote:
@surface detail
Well I have a tendency to skip the insigificant parts in order to concentrate on the subjects which actually matter. The IPCC has indeed claimed these figures, as this report (page 79) shows.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Next, you yourself referenced to a later IPCC report, where the cooling by clouds was even more exagerated, that is -50W/m2 vs. +30W/m2.
Surface Detail wrote:
Actually, the overall effect of clouds is to cool the planet since the albedo effect of -50 Wm-2 (reflecting sunlight back into space) outweighs their greenhouse effect (radiating IR back to Earth) of +30 Wm-2. It is thought that clouds will contribute a slightly positive feedback as the planet warms (the increase in greenhouse effect greater than the increase in albedo effect), though there is still considerably uncertainty about this.
The chapter from the 2013 IPCC Report dealing with clouds and aerosols can be found here: Clouds and Aerosols
So I will doubt you would not be aware of the IPCCs position.
https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/att00001.jpg |
| 28-04-2017 02:52 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Leitwolf wrote:
@surface detail
Well I have a tendency to skip the insigificant parts in order to concentrate on the subjects which actually matter. The IPCC has indeed claimed these figures, as this report (page 79) shows.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf
Next, you yourself referenced to a later IPCC report, where the cooling by clouds was even more exagerated, that is -50W/m2 vs. +30W/m2.
Surface Detail wrote:
Actually, the overall effect of clouds is to cool the planet since the albedo effect of -50 Wm-2 (reflecting sunlight back into space) outweighs their greenhouse effect (radiating IR back to Earth) of +30 Wm-2. It is thought that clouds will contribute a slightly positive feedback as the planet warms (the increase in greenhouse effect greater than the increase in albedo effect), though there is still considerably uncertainty about this.
The chapter from the 2013 IPCC Report dealing with clouds and aerosols can be found here: Clouds and Aerosols
So I will doubt you would not be aware of the IPCCs position.
I would have thought that actually making clear what you were arguing against was an essential part of an argument. If you're arguing against a position held by the IPCC, it would make sense to quote the IPCC, rather than Wikipedia, in your paper.
Anyway, it seems to me that you've made a mistake in your emissivity calculation. The fact that the sunlight not reflected by clouds is not absorbed 100% in their absence is already taken into account in the figures you use. There is no need for a further correction.
Look at it in terms of reflected radiation. Using your figures (which are already a bit out), 107 Wm-2 of solar radiation is actually reflected. If clouds reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by 44 Wm-2, then that must be how much they reflect, so the amount of radiation that would be reflected if Earth were cloudless would be 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2. This then corresponds to an emissivity of 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim. |
| 28-04-2017 04:40 |
Leitwolf★☆☆☆☆
(117) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Look at it in terms of reflected radiation. Using your figures (which are already a bit out), 107 Wm-2 of solar radiation is actually reflected. If clouds reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by 44 Wm-2, then that must be how much they reflect, so the amount of radiation that would be reflected if Earth were cloudless would be 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2. This then corresponds to an emissivity of 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim.
You are talking complete nonsense (sorry, do not want to insult). What you are looking for is this (and did not put that way, but we can if you want to..): 63/(344-44) = ?
Take this as some homework..
Edited on 28-04-2017 05:23 |
| 28-04-2017 10:17 |
Surface Detail★★★★☆
(1673) |
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Look at it in terms of reflected radiation. Using your figures (which are already a bit out), 107 Wm-2 of solar radiation is actually reflected. If clouds reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by 44 Wm-2, then that must be how much they reflect, so the amount of radiation that would be reflected if Earth were cloudless would be 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2. This then corresponds to an emissivity of 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim.
You are talking complete nonsense (sorry, do not want to insult). What you are looking for is this (and did not put that way, but we can if you want to..): 63/(344-44) = ?
Take this as some homework..
Sorry, I meant albedo of course, not emissivity.
Albedo = Radiation reflected / radiation arriving
If there were no clouds, radiation reflected = 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2
Radiation arriving remains the same = 344 Wm-2
So albedo without clouds = 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim.
It makes no sense to subtract 44 Wm-2 from the radiation arriving since the radiation arriving at the Earth from the sun doesn't change if you take away the clouds.
Edited on 28-04-2017 10:19 |
| 28-04-2017 17:44 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Surface Detail wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Look at it in terms of reflected radiation. Using your figures (which are already a bit out), 107 Wm-2 of solar radiation is actually reflected. If clouds reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by 44 Wm-2, then that must be how much they reflect, so the amount of radiation that would be reflected if Earth were cloudless would be 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2. This then corresponds to an emissivity of 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim.
You are talking complete nonsense (sorry, do not want to insult). What you are looking for is this (and did not put that way, but we can if you want to..): 63/(344-44) = ?
Take this as some homework..
Sorry, I meant albedo of course, not emissivity.
Albedo = Radiation reflected / radiation arriving
If there were no clouds, radiation reflected = 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2
Radiation arriving remains the same = 344 Wm-2
So albedo without clouds = 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim.
It makes no sense to subtract 44 Wm-2 from the radiation arriving since the radiation arriving at the Earth from the sun doesn't change if you take away the clouds.
You might want to read this paper: http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/apr2014/Estimation-Of-The-Albedo-Of-The-Earths-Atmosphere-At-Makurdi-Nigeria.pdf |
| 30-04-2017 01:18 |
LifeIsThermal☆☆☆☆☆
(39) |
Leitwolf wrote:
Ok, to be more precise, I can handily falsify the theory of a so called GHE, but more importantly, I can perfectly explain why earth is just as warm as it is - without "greenhouse gases". It is simple and incredibly logic. But even more incredibly, no one seemed to have brought the argument forward so far.
I will skip the part of falsifying the GHE as such, which is intersting enough but relatively meaningless by comparison to the other things I have done. I have already posted the corner stones of the theory here..
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/emissivity-of-the-ocean-d6-e1342.php
and here..
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/clouds-and-nocturnal-cooling-d6-e1366.php
There were yet some flaws in it all, and I had to through a couple details. Now that it is sorted out, it is looking more solid than ever. Of course I should add, that I have been into this only for a couple of weeks, which is not much time to overtake thousands of scientists earning their life on this subject. But given my intellectual superiority, I never had doubt to possibly do better than all of them.
Of course I wanted to put my theory to the test, which is why I exposed parts of it here. As to be expected there was not much wise response but rather some typical troll behaviour. I am well aware how (intellectual) babies will always be afraid of strangers and even more so of theories and concepts they have not heard of yet. Sorry, I can not take much regard on that.
I also sent a copy of the whole story to Mr. Christopher Keating, the guy who once put up a reward of 30.000$ for proving climate change was not real. There was a time limit for that, and no I did not ask him for money. Rather I wanted him to challenge my theory, and he failed miserably.
Mainly he critizised me for being so vain to think I could be smarter than all the experts. When I responded that I was simply a genius by my IQ and could naturally do such things, he responded "An IQ is merely a measure of how well you learn". Which is probably the reason why Mr. Keating "knowing it all" will not need one
Yeah, me too. I use heat transfer basically, and I connect it to the core temperature with the assumption that the core has the same surface temperature as the sun. Because, how could a glowing interior have any other temperature, when the surface is in a proven equilibrium shown by the confirmed addition of only 90mW internally generated heat. If the earth emits ~390W/m^2+90mW/m^2, it means that it is almost perfectly balanced. People seems to forget that the heat has to balance to a glowing enourmous mass with a shell, it doesn´t bounce at the surface. Absorbed at an intensity of 1361W/(4/3)^2 according to just an empty spherical shell surrounded by another shell(atmos), on half the surface area that emits the same amount. That gives a surface flux of 382W/m^2, or about 286-287 Kelvin. A slightly different value to the widely known mean of 288K, but we know that earth is not a perfect sphere, don´t we?
If you take the surface flux and just use standard net transfer. Then remember that absorbed solar heat has to be emitted according to inverse square ****er, then you get what? 1361-382/4=Tadaa! 256Kelvin
The core then. If the atmosphere emits 244,75 watts, the source has to emit 4x244,75=979 badass Watts. If the core has the temperature of the surface of the sun, and internal layers is assumed to process that energy in the same way, then each surface of a layer and volume above it will decrease it´s intensity to 1/4 for each step. That gives 8 steps. Take the fourth root of 979*4^8/0.0000000567=5795 Kelvin. I would say that is close enough, and if you use the observed mean values instead of the unrealistic perfect spherical empty massless volume with shells, you get closer. Really proud of that shit. Hillbillyphysics, getting shit sorted out.
Now, my model is more complete, it describes the atmospheres distribution of energy as well, heat transfer only. It nail diffuse solar radiation in zenith+direct radiation as well as only direct radiation. But the most exciting part came in last. It is a beauty. Why didn´t anyone think about the connection between gravity and heat. They are equal. The core temp and gravity are speculative, but the rest I really think is correct.
https://lifeisthermal.wordpress.com/
I have a mistress, thermodynamics. The answer to everything. The formula for emitted intensity, the steffo-bollo equation, is the formula for everything. But shhh, don´t say anything, watch the stupid people say stupid things about dark matter and other ghost stories. It´s hilarious.
Were you really that cocky to him? I mean, I love being cocky to climate-retards, but scientists I try to respect. But Michael Mann is a person I would like to punch in the face. I really hate that guy. If I ever get the chance, I´m going to punch him silly and take a dump on his face. |
| 30-04-2017 01:24 |
LifeIsThermal☆☆☆☆☆
(39) |
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Leitwolf wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Look at it in terms of reflected radiation. Using your figures (which are already a bit out), 107 Wm-2 of solar radiation is actually reflected. If clouds reduce the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth by 44 Wm-2, then that must be how much they reflect, so the amount of radiation that would be reflected if Earth were cloudless would be 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2. This then corresponds to an emissivity of 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim.
You are talking complete nonsense (sorry, do not want to insult). What you are looking for is this (and did not put that way, but we can if you want to..): 63/(344-44) = ?
Take this as some homework..
Sorry, I meant albedo of course, not emissivity.
Albedo = Radiation reflected / radiation arriving
If there were no clouds, radiation reflected = 107 - 44 = 63 Wm-2
Radiation arriving remains the same = 344 Wm-2
So albedo without clouds = 63/344 = 0.183, not the 0.21 that you claim.
It makes no sense to subtract 44 Wm-2 from the radiation arriving since the radiation arriving at the Earth from the sun doesn't change if you take away the clouds.
You might want to read this paper: http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/apr2014/Estimation-Of-The-Albedo-Of-The-Earths-Atmosphere-At-Makurdi-Nigeria.pdf
Albedo is an effect of temperature. Why would anyone think anything else? Why does anyone reduce solar irradiation first, then say there is missing heat? The really dumb folks then say: look at that cold atmosphere at -18C, that is where the missing heat comes from. |