Last Build Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2017 18:45:02 +0000
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 18:45:02 +0000Barton, I am afraid Mack is a flat-earther. To quote from him elsewhere on the Net: "Secondly...Andrew Lacis, ( like all the rest) ,says "This puts the global-mean incident solar energy at 340.2 w/sq,m." No it doesn't cloudpoint. The 1360w/sq.m is a yearly global average, and is a bulk load which cannot be buggerised round with and divided down. You can't just pick one instant in time and say the Earth casts a shadow , therefore this and that are calculated. The sun shines over your head also at nightime when you deal with this average. Reality is , the 1360w/sq.m IS the incident solar radiation. It should be regarded as non-directional, covering the whole globe at the TOA."
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 16:42:33 +0000Frank @56, I can't see from you links but are the observed and projected warming shown as temperature anomalies? If so there's your answer.
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:27:33 +0000Mal Adapted #206, "culture warrior" https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/opinion/wrestling-explains-alex-jones-and-donald-trump.html
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:12:45 +0000Mack 208: The Earth’s surface is not frozen over because it’s the sun, stupid. BPL: No, that's not the reason. See my previous post. Do the math. You can do math, right?
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:10:43 +0000Mack 207: Forgive me for making a stupid suggestion…but could it be the SUN that melts all the ice ?? BPL: No, it couldn't, Mack, and that's what the math is all about. Forget what gets through to the surface. Let's find ALL the solar energy falling on Earth and see if it's enough. The Solar constant is about 1362 watts per square meter. But because Earth is a sphere, its surface area is 4 π R^2, while its cross-sectional area--which intercepts the sunlight--is only π R^2. So Earth only gets 340.5 watts per square meter of surface area. But not all that gets absorbed. Some gets reflected away--about 30%. The climate system absorbs 70%, which is 238 watts per square meter. Now, take the "Stefan-Boltzmann law," which relates flux density (watts per square meter) to temperature (kelvins, which are the same as degrees Celsius). The flux density follows the fourth power of temperature--something twice as hot radiates sixteen times as much energy! Invert it to find the temperature from the flux density: T = (F / σ) ^ 1/4 The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, σ is 5.670367 x 10^-8 watts per square meter per kelvin. The temperature sunlight can bring the Earth to is therefore 255 K. Water freezes at 273 K. So if all the sunlight absorbed by Earth's climate system were concentrated at the surface, it STILL would not be enough to melt Earth's oceans. Do you see the problem?
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:01:53 +0000Ray Ladbury, I don't need to consider the flow of energy. A thermometer gets hotter, or it doesn't. Introducing more CO2 between a thermometer on the surface, and the Sun, does not increase the temperature of the thermometer. CO2 is not a magic gas, even less a magic one way insulator. You cannot even provide a testable GHE hypothesis. Maybe if you (or anyone else), could do so, you would discover that your hypothesis, like that of the necessity for a luminiferous aether, is erroneous. Mal Adapted, Speculations mean nothing. Many 19th century scientists believed in the luminiferous aether. Maybe you agree - or do you only believe the speculations that suit your opinion? You may assume as you wish. No-one has yet managed to demonstrate in a reproducible fashion the existence of the GHE. I prefer facts to faith. Experimental confirmation supports hypotheses - but you don't even have a testable hypothesis. Kevin McKinney, The experiment was not support for the greenhouse effect. It is obvious that I know far more physics than you. The fact that the Team is censoring my responses shows that they are unable to produce any facts to rebut anything I have said. Maybe I know more about quantum physics than they do - what would cause you to believe otherwise? It doesn't really matter, I guess. People far more influential than myself have noted that the blog moderators tend to "vanish" inconvenient facts. They too have noticed a tendency for ad hominem comments to be preferred to factual rebuttal, giving the impression to an outside observer that no testable GHE hypothesis even exists. Cheers.
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:01:35 +0000Gc 132, I don't know if there's one here, but there might be: https://images.nasa.gov/#/
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:00:10 +0000SN 127: I was there. I didn’t see you there. . . . Why not? BPL: Probably because I was elsewhere. I was present, in fetal form, at the first lunch counter sit-in in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, in February 1960. I didn't see you there. Why not?
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:57:29 +0000V 120: ...snow storms lasting weeks... BPL: Okay, for the 1,000th time: Weather and climate are two different things. Weather is local, day-to-day variation in temperature, pressure, rainfall, cloud cover, wind velocity and direction, etc. It is chaotic and cannot be predicted more than two weeks or so in advance. Climate, on the other hand, is a statistical average of weather over a large region, or the entirely globe, for thirty years or more. It can be predicted for very long periods of time. Another way to put it is that weather is an initial values problem, while climate is a boundary values problem. Here are some examples to distinguish the two. I don't know what the temperature will be on March 3rd in Pittsburgh (weather). But I can safely bet that it will be cooler than on August 3rd (climate). I don't know what the temperature will be in Cairo, Egypt tomorrow (weather). But I can safely bet that it will be warmer than in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica (climate).
Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:55:43 +0000SN 53: I was there. I didn’t see you there. BPL: In my case, that's because I was at Kent State East Liverpool giving a lecture on global warming and drought. Don't assume that because you didn't see anyone at your party, they must therefore have been idle.