Climate rebuttals to crack the activist grip on our mind

Reblogged from CFACT

By

Heartland launches 22 climate science “gatebreakers”

“Gatebreaker” is a word I use to describe a special kind of document that until recently has been few and far between. It is a one or two-page non-technical refutation of a specific alarmist argument. It is something a student or citizen can use to confront an alarmist gatekeeper, hence the name gatebreaker. I wrote about the need for gatebreakers several years ago.

The Heartland Institute has just published a whopping 22 gatebreakers, with more promised. This is a true wealth of important skeptical material, unlike anything we have seen before. My dream is coming true.

A gatebreaker is something a skeptical student can send around to the class when the teacher insists on alarmism. Or something short and simple to send to a journalist in response to an alarmist article, or to a politician making alarmist speeches, or the local blowhard alarmist. It’s power lies in its specificity and its simplicity.

The Heartland website is called “Climate at a Glance” which makes it sound softer than it really is, sort of like a pink pistol which you can actually buy. These are not glances; they are hard-hitting rebuttals.

Heartland calls these short pieces “summaries” because each summarizes a strong response to a common alarmist claim or argument. The summaries are wide ranging because the climate change debate is like that. There is hard science, but also policy, economics and things in between. Extreme weather gets a lot of attention. Here is a partial list to give the flavour of the mix:

  • Antarctic Ice Melt
  • Floods
  • Carbon Dioxide Tax
  • Hurricanes
  • National Security
  • Crop Production
  • Consensus
  • Water Levels – Great Lakes
  • Climate Sensitivity
  • Subsidies
  • Sea Level Rise
  • Tipping Point – 1.5 °C Warming (my personal favourite)

Plus a bunch more.

Here is how Heartland explains it. The what: “This website condenses frequently argued climate issues into one or two-page “at-a-glance” summaries. Bullet-points at the top provide quick, memorable information. Short summaries of a paragraph or two provide additional depth. Many summaries include powerful visual graphs. Embedded links verify the information.”

And the why: “Climate At A Glance puts frequently argued climate issues into short, concise summaries that provide the most important, accurate, powerful information. The summaries are designed to provide a library of solid yet simple rebuttals so that legislators, teachers, students and laymen can easily refute the exaggerations of the so-called “climate crisis.””

Taken together these summaries make a nice short course on the climate change debate.

In addition to refuting the primary alarmist arguments, Heartland might consider adding summaries of positive skeptical arguments related to key issues that alarmists ignore. These include issues like the flaws in the climate models, the little ice age, natural variability, scaring children, the impossibility of 100% renewables and the incredible benefits of fossil fuels.

Then too it would be very useful if some of these skeptical summaries were specifically geared to the new Next Generation Science Standards. These are just coming into force for many of America’s K-12 students. Climate change is taught in both middle and high school, with a definite slant toward alarmism. Students are required to use climate models in middle school. No doubt these are alarmist models.

Also there is a somewhat different approach, which I have experimented. This is to teach just that there is a serious scientific debate on a given issue. The student is not expected to understand the technical scientific debate. Rather it is like going to visit a big laboratory, to see that a lot of work is being done. This approach is useful in settings where digging into the science would be disruptive.

I do this by first briefly explaining both sides of the issue, then show the student a Google Scholar search on that topic in the recent scientific literature. For example, a search on “little ice age” finds over 10,000 articles in the last five years talking about the LIA. Over 250 have it in their article title. Clearly there is still a ton of research going on. My LIA gatebreaker is at http://ccdedu.blogspot.com/2019/05/are-we-coming-out-of-little-ice-age.html.

But possible additions are not a criticism of the present grand package. Heartland’s new collection of gatebreakers is an awesome resource. A clear antidote to climate alarmism at the street level. Spread the word. Climate at a Glance is a game changer.

62 Thoughts on “Climate rebuttals to crack the activist grip on our mind

  1. Nick ,Simon and Pyat might learn some thing here.
    Climate sensitivity would be s good place to start .
    A little education is a dangerous thing and by studying these papers you will find out how much you don’t know and how you have been lied to for the last 20 years .
    Happy reading in your bubbles guys.
    Graham
    Still feeding New Zealand and the World with Milk and Meat products .

    • Sorry Gwan, these “papers” prove nothing, except the desperation of the Heartland Institute.

    • Pyat and Simon have you even read these papers ?
      Your crowd the CAGW mob are getting desperate as their predictions are not turning out as they want.
      Polar bears were going extinct . Populations growing.
      Great Barrier Reef can’t take the heat. Crooked scientists taking photos of a few corals looking a bit stressed in a very small area and trying to bluff the world that the reef is dying. The reef is in good health.
      The climate statistics show there is no trend or evidence that droughts ,floods , hurricanes or tornadoes are increasing in numbers or intensity.
      The world was warmer than now 1000 years ago and there is plenty of evidence that sea levels have been higher than now.
      This warming started around 200 years ago before man had started using fossil fuels and I will show you some facts.
      When Glacier Bay in Alaska was first discovered in around 1750 the glacier was right out to the Pacific ocean.
      Over the next century the glacier retreated back up the bay and by 1906 it was many miles from the ocean .NO fossil fuels.
      The retreat has slowed down over the last 100 years to about to around a mile in total ,but in the summer the main glacier is still calving into the bay.
      Yes we have Mann made climate change and it is men trying to bluff the world, altering historical data to make their theory fit .
      They some how think that they know best and the whole scam is based on climate models that all run hot.
      I could write a lot more but I have work to do producing food for those that like beef butter .cheese and milk.
      Graham

  2. Richard Treadgold on April 12, 2020 at 8:56 am said:

    Here’s hoping, Gwan.

  3. Simon on April 12, 2020 at 5:10 pm said:

    LOL. These all seem to have been written by Anthony Watts, whose grasp of climate science is tenuous at best. He does concede though that the temperature increase this century could be as high as 1.5°C, which is a scary proposition when continental temperate land masses could be much higher than that.

    • Richard Treadgold on April 14, 2020 at 12:34 pm said:

      But they weren’t all written by him, were they? He “concedes” 1.5°C by 2100? But that’s the non-threatening maximum you warmsters have predicted from the start, claiming it would rise after some unproven water vapour feedback. You’ve noticed that stratospheric wv isn’t cooperating with the AR5 predictions, going down instead of up? Perhaps global temperature isn’t rising as it should be.

  4. The climate sensitivity bit is ridiculous. There is no differentiation between transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity which Watts then tries to equate with temperature in 2100. The problem is that we don’t know what the future greenhouse gas emissions profile will be. The figures he quotes assume net GHG gas emissions reducing to zero mid-century while simultaneously arguing that we don’t need to change behavior. It’s complete and utter rubbish that only fool the gullible.

    • Richard Treadgold on April 14, 2020 at 12:39 pm said:

      Gosh, a whole page of small articles, and you analyse just one. I’d have expected more effort from you. No, we don’t know what the future emissions profile will be, yet that doesn’t stop stupid predictions of catastrophe from the alarmists, does it? Mind you, we don’t even know the present relationship between emissions and atmospheric levels of CO2. Do you know? As if CO2 has any significant influence on temperature. Disagree? Show me how I’m wrong.

  5. All the climate models are running hot .
    Why would we even take any notice of unproven models designed to show dangerous warming ?
    Take for an example models produced here in NZ and overseas that were supposed to predict covis 19 deaths .
    Our New Zealand model produced by Auckland and other NZ universities predicted 20,000 deaths here in NZ.
    In the USA the models predicted over 100,000 deaths from covd 19.
    Do your own research and find out for your selves that a monkey throwing a dart at a dart board could be more accurate .
    Graham,
    Still busy producing food for NZ and the World

  6. And the likelihood every university science department is wrong is (approximately):

    0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

    • @Nick
      “And the likelihood every university science department is wrong is….”

      I’ve got news for you, Nick….every university science department IS wrong.
      Every university science department subscribes to Kevin Trenberth’s looney Earth Energy Budget diagrams.

      Every university science department teach their students that these Earth Energy Budget diagrams show the incoming solar radiation arriving at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA), is in the vicinity of 340 watts. ….. when it is in fact, the REALITY of about 1360 watts/sq.m.

      Every university science department proceeds, from that horrendous mistake, to concoct the almost unimaginable load of imaginary unreal sciency crap about our Earth Sciences which is disgrace to science and an insult to human intelligence.

      Every university science department …from this error… have to invent some mythical “greenhouse effect” of the ATMOSPHERE which, according to Trenberth’s looney EEB diagrams, show varying amounts, but roughly… 324 watts/ sq.m. of “BACKRADIATION”, belting down from the ATMOSPHERE 24/7 !!! ….. and, wait for it… this atmospheric “backradiation” rat droppings from the atmosphere, is nearly TWICE the radiation… according to the looney diagrams…. we get at the Earth’s surface from the SUN !!….they calculate out as about 168 watts/sq.m. In other words, we should be able to leave our bacon and eggs out on the porch overnight and have them cooked for us by the morning.

      Every university science department… from this error… of the watts/sq.m… then using this insufficient power from the Sun…rightly use the Stephan-Boltzmann equation to determine what the average temperature of the Earth should be at Earth’s surface, and of course, come up with this imaginary FROZEN BALL of an Earth, with an an average temperature of -18 deg. C. !!! Last time I looked at the sea… it wasn’t frozen solid.

      Every university science department is, in fact, trying to “educate” us that the ATMOSPHERE, with some wacko, “greenhouse effect” , keeps the OCEANS form becoming totally FROZEN SOLID.

      Every university science department needs to be told….it’s the SUN, stupid.

    • Man of Thessaly on April 19, 2020 at 11:12 pm said:

      [Mack]: Every university science department teach their students that these Earth Energy Budget diagrams show the incoming solar radiation arriving at the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA), is in the vicinity of 340 watts. ….. when it is in fact, the REALITY of about 1360 watts/sq.m.

      You don’t understand what you read, Mack: 340 W/m2 is the incoming solar radiation at TOA averaged over the whole Earth. As you surely know, the surface area of a sphere is 4 times its cross-sectional area. 1360 W/m2 divided by 4 is 340 W/m2.

      Oh, look at that. The universities do know their stuff after all. And you don’t. Dolt.

    • Gidday Thessalface…again…. nah, you ignorant clown….YOU don’t understand. You don’t understand that the TSI of 1360 watts per sq.m is a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE…. and you realise, don’t you….that an AVERAGE cannot be divided down by 4… because it defies mathematics… the answer is just that…at the bottom of the page …the satellite instruments have already done the workings out….given you the REAL global average in watts/sq.m of a flickering, waxing and waning Sun…. AVERAGED OVER A FULL YEAR. The Sun never sets in space…and space is right there at the TOA . The Sun just sits there at the TOA 24/7, and shines down from the TOA 24/7 with the 1360watts/sq.m. It’s REAL and MEASURED by the satellites. It’s a REALITY that no amount of calculations can ever alter, by you, or by any university science department with any amount of academics drawing pictures of the Sun and Earth on the blackboard.
      The wacko Trenberth EEBs, adhered to by every university science department, has the Sun somehow going round and round the Earth, in space, just above the TOA, to give this fake 340watts incoming solar at the TOA. …to give some sort of night and day at the TOA.!!! The massive mistake of this unreal 340watts/sq.m. at the TOA is proven by the fact that the SABER study has shown that nitric oxide and CO2 molecules in the thermosphere, are seen to glow red hot during an active Sun…..so the wattage required to achieve that is certainly not your wacko CALCULATED 340 watts/sq.m….but more like a one of those old 1and1/2 bar heaters…ie 1360 watts/sq.m.
      Every university science department is filled with teaching academics who parrot, without thinking, year after year the same old unreal drawing on the blackboard of the Sun and Earth and this horrendous mistake of 340 watts/sq.m solar incoming radiation at the TOA. Their heads have never moved out the classroom door. Outside the classroom, they might have noticed that a 1sq.m metal plate, left out in the Sun, will get hot enough to fry eggs on. …so what sort of watts would be required to heat that 1sq.m. ?….well, looking at an electrical stove top , the wattage required for that is obviously in the 1000watt range. ….so it’s pretty obvious that the looney Trenberth EEB diagrams you put your scientific faith in ,Thessalhead,… showing that there’s an average of only 161, 163, 168 watts/sq.m solar radiation at the surface… is just a load of (insufficient) bollocks.

    • Man of Thessaly on April 20, 2020 at 10:32 am said:

      [Mack]: the TSI of 1360 watts per sq.m is a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE…. and you realise, don’t you….that an AVERAGE cannot be divided down by 4… because it defies mathematics…

      Ha ha! Keep digging, you dolt. You’re not making yourself look any smarter. Here’s an explanation of averaging over the sphere, from a source you probably won’t reject out of hand: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/06/on-the-flat-earth-rants-of-joe-postma/

      Spencer says:
      “…the S=1,370 W/m2 “solar constant” energy that is intercepted by the cross-sectional area of the Earth must then get spread out, over time, over the whole (top-of-atmosphere) surface area of Earth. [This why S gets divided by 4 in global average energy budget diagrams, it’s the difference between the area of a circle and the area of a sphere with the same radius.] I am at a loss for words how he can refuse to accept something that is so obviously true — it’s simple geometry.”

      That’s something new – are you a geometry denier?

    • @ Thessalface
      It’s like taking to an imbecile with you…. everything I say goes in one ear and out the other. Noooo I’m not a “geometry denier”… what part of the words YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE do you not understand. With a yearly global average you cannot just pick one instant in time, draw rays on a blackboard from the Sun to the Earth and CALCULATE at that instant in time,…by geometry what you think might be the incoming solar radiation at the TOA…it’s just artificial, imaginary crap. Sorry , the THERMOSPHERE ,just a little bit below the TOA , glows red hot with 1360 watts/sq.m. Get real, clown.
      You and every university science department, are confused…and confuse your students, as to where the surface of the Earth is…. Trenberth with his looney EEBs ,think that the surface of the Earth is at the “surface” of the TOA. …so he has his wacko drawing on the blackboard of 340watts/sq.m striking the “surface” of the Earth at the TOA.
      The truth …. is that the geometric calculation should START at the TOA…. and by the geometry of dividing by 4…you get the REAL solar radiation at the REAL Earth’s surface.
      That makes the REAL solar radiation at the REAL Earth’s surface, about your 340watts/sq.m….(not allowing for atmospheric attenuation.)
      And I’ll let you into another little secret, dumbkolpf. The atmospheric attenuation is about 20watts/sq.m…. so in REALITY the Earth’s surface receives about 320watts/sq.m of solar radiation…. and this is sufficient to keep the global average temperature at 15deg C …. WITHOUT the need for any of your wacko “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere.

    • Man of Thessaly on April 20, 2020 at 1:30 pm said:

      This is so funny. You are demonstrating yourself be such a “common man” that Andy will probably ask you to organise the global coronavirus response. Experts begone!

    • Oh these “experts’ whose predictions are out by a factor of 100 and whose advise has resulted in the destruction of the NZ economy? How charming.

    • @Mack. Ah, now I understand where you’re coming from! It’s the Sun’s varying output over the year that causes Earth’s summer and winter… Brilliant! 🙂

    • Reference for Trenberth’s looney Earth Energy Budget diagrams…for readers…
      https://www.google.com.mm/search?q=Trenberth%27s+Earth+Energy+Budget+diagrams&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=kTUaxU-Qu6d-xM%253A%252CfSeCUfxmfAN-EM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kRR108PcwHdupvn4qGJlTq-aaeVZA&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwivr-Ge2PboAhU6xzgGHZcxA58Q9QEwCXoECAoQLw#imgrc=kTUaxU-Qu6d-xM:
      The incoming solar radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere is 342 watts/sq.m in this cartoon….. that is the mistake …it should be the BULK LOAD of 1360watts/sq.m. …(Real and measured by satellite) non directional and covering the whole globe at the TOA…..not to be divided down… before it even gets to the TOA ! !
      From that mistake, these looney EEB’s branch out into the madness of these diagrams stated in my comment above……with nowhere to go because Trenberth has only got the dribble of 342 watts/sq.m. of solar radiation coming in at the TOA , he is forced to conjure (literally out of thin air) something called a “greenhouse effect”….and in this case it’s 324 watts/sq.m. of “backradiation” from “greenhouse gases” Make no mistake, Trenberth tries to convince you that these figures are real , because they are “absorbed by the surface” no less. But in this case, I think the figure of 324watts/sq.m was pulled from his ass to deliberately confuse any poor student trying to follow these wacko diagrams….confuse with his incoming solar of 342 watts/sq.m. (I’ve actually seen confused commentators on the internet with this) …. The cunning climate clown, Trenberth , has invented this figure to catch out any poor student with a whisker of dyslexia,,,ie 342 watts….324….342…324…342….324…

    • Man of Thessaly on April 20, 2020 at 11:23 pm said:

      [Mack]: 1360watts/sq.m. …(Real and measured by satellite) non directional and covering the whole globe at the TOA

      Fascinating. What’s it like, living on a planet with sunlight coming in from all directions, illuminating the whole globe? The planet I live on has a day side and a night side, with the TOA at the sub solar point receiving about 1360 W/m2 incoming solar radiation (as measured by satellites). The night side receives no solar radiation (also measured by satellite). On average, the TOA over the whole sphere receives about 340 W/m2.

    • You ignorant AGW brainwashed clown have got no conception of a BULK LOAD of a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE…. grow a brain. …and by the way the Earth goes round the Sun….the Sun doesn’t round the Earth at the TOA. …. there’s no day and night at the TOA to get 1360 watts divided down in half , for a kick off. … and also are you effed in the head enough to argue in favour off Trenberth’s EEB diagrams?

    • Also, just point out to me on the y axis of this chart whereabouts is that 340watts/sq.m of solar radiation that you and Trenberth are blabbing about.
      https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/total-solar-irradiance-tsi-datasets-overview

    • Man of Thessaly on April 21, 2020 at 11:24 am said:

      [Mack]: there’s no day and night at the TOA

      I am really curious about your mental model of the Earth. Presumably you realise that the surface of the planet is half in sunlight, half in shade. So how can the TOA (only about 100 km higher) be permanently in sunlight? Does anyone else you know believe this? Can you link to a diagram that shows how you think it works?

    • Joe Postma’s diagram is the closest to what happens in reality…. the one you thought that Roy Spencer rubbished . ( in your link further up) Get yourself enlightened, clown, you’re part of the biggest scientific hoax, mistake, scam in history.

    • @Mack. Yeah, a hoax since 1824, when Fourier realised it was Earth’s atmosphere that made the planet habitable.

      Mate, you are as mad as a hatter.

    • @Nick
      Yeah, and there were “experts” who thought the Earth was flat…. and there are STILL “experts” who model the Earth as flat….. such as the academic wackos who teach Trenberth’s looney Earth Energy Budget diagrams.

    • BobbyJ on April 21, 2020 at 2:16 pm said:

      Good work trying to educate the cretins, Mack.

      We live in an age where our “academics” believe in flat Earth theory without understanding what they believe themselves to understand at all…which is of course the BEST way to believe in and support flat Earth theory, as they do. They don’t understand such simple things as real-time constant TOA flux, and fictional averages that mean nothing and have no connection to physics whatsoever.

      https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/02/10/earths-thermodynamic-energy-budget/

    • Mate, you’re as mad as a hatter if you (and Fourier) thought that the ATMOSPHERE increased the Global Average TEMPERATURE by some 33 deg C. . I’ve got news for you ,clown, the atmosphere COOLS the surface.

    • According to the climate deniers, Earth is about to start cooling soon. The explanation may be all the refrigerators people are buying now… 🙂

    • Man of Thessaly on April 21, 2020 at 2:02 pm said:

      @Mack. The diagrams in Postma’s article are standard energy-balance diagrams, showing the average incoming solar radiation as TSI (total solar irradiance) divided by 4. He presents them because he says they’re wrong. There’s nothing in his article that explains your belief that “there’s no day and night at the TOA”.

    • What part of the words….” the Sun never sets in space” do you not understand ?

    • Man of Thessaly on April 21, 2020 at 3:17 pm said:

      Really? I suggest you check out video evidence from the International Space Station: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnhKSZMHnQk
      Yep, the sun definitely sets in space.

    • Not from a fixed satellite looking up at the Sun, it doesn’t.

    • Man of Thessaly on April 21, 2020 at 3:35 pm said:

      From the top of the atmosphere above you now, it does.

    • Did you know that …with a YEARLY GLOBAL AVERAGE, that the Sun is also shining above your head at night time, too ?

    • Man of Thessaly on April 21, 2020 at 3:49 pm said:

      YES! Now you’re getting it! Sometimes it’s shining on the TOA at any given point, sometimes it’s not. On average, it’s shining 1/4 of the full strength.

    • Nah, the Sun always shines at full strength. mate.

    • Man of Thessaly on April 21, 2020 at 4:14 pm said:

      Sure, but only on one side of the atmosphere. Oh well, I can see you’re not going to make this leap of understanding that happens to most people in primary school.

      But as a bigger point for all: this is what you get if you decide not to be guided by expert advice, Andy. Some of the “non-experts” are actually imbeciles.

    • “Oh well, I can see you’re not going to make this leap of understanding that happens to most people in primary school”

      Oh well, I can see your leap of understanding in primary school must have occurred here..
      https://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/video.cfm?c_id=26&gal_objectid=11634737&gallery_id=160389
      You were probably one of the poor, wretched boys who were indoctrinated there.
      You can see how they’ve made that “leap of understanding”.

    • You are right Nick. The Experts are always right, all of the time

      Ok so people like Nial Fegurgon got their pandemic projections out by a factor of 100 or more, and we may have destroyed the world economy for no reason, but who cares?

      Thousands will have no future and will die of poverty, disease or suicide, but who cares?

      No one!

      All praise the Experts! Death to the common man!

    • Oh look, there’s a squirrel!

    • Not here

  7. It takes a special kind of hubris to believe that everyone else is wrong. It’s the Dunning-Kruger effect writ large.

  8. I am afraid I cannot understand the difficulty with simple geometry.

    Earth presents to the Sun as a disc, area at any given time: π × r2

    Total area of Earth surface at the time: 4 × π × r2

    Energy received over surface: π × r2 divided by 4 × π × r2 = 1/4 that of disc

    Average energy over total surface: 1360/4 = 340

    Calculation of mean values for a diagram has nothing to do with the fact Earth retains more energy as the greenhouse effect increases with more greenhouse gas.

    • @ Nick
      ” ….the fact Earth retains more energy….”
      How much more energy ? More than by how much? Where exactly is this more energy?
      Nothing scientific….you’re just blabbing through a hole in your head.

    • As you cannot grasp the concept you could not understand the numbers.

    • What concept ? What numbers have you got for me wrt to this piece of crap science where you think….” the fact”…. Earth retains more energy ” .
      Quantify this “more” energy.
      When did this “more” energy begin ? What is the nature of this “more” energy….is it logarithmic or what?
      You’re an ignorant AGW brainwashed clown, ….like any interview with Trenberth, … just unmeasurable ,hypothetical, sciency sounding, hand waving bullshit.

    • Kev-In-ZA on April 28, 2020 at 7:45 am said:

      Nick, if you believe in averages, why not go grab the live wire on your domestic electrical mains while standing in a bath of water…
      I don’t know where you live, but I am sure you have AC power fluctuating between either +/-230V or perhaps +/-110v in a beautiful sine wave. Now you can average that waveform by integration with respect to time, and it will be a perfect 0V….
      I dare you, it is guaranteed on average to be 0-volts…. Nothing to worry about…!!!

      So clearly averages don’t tell the real story. And, hence your argument that you can linearly-average the sun’s insolation temperature potential, (which potential is clearly not a linear function with additional complex earth buffering and heat-capacity also at play), is physics and mathematic ignorance and stupidity.

      The Trenberth approach to the basic EEB is bogus and pseudo-science…!

    • Richard Treadgold on April 28, 2020 at 7:54 am said:

      The beauty of simplicity. Thanks, Kevin.

    • Man of Thessaly on April 28, 2020 at 12:21 pm said:

      RT, you fail to distinguish between “simple” and “simplistic”. Kev-in-ZA’s analogy is terrible. It suggests that (like AC current) the sun’s radiation changes direction. Even Mack knows this isn’t true. The sun shines all the time, but only half the Earth is illuminated. It therefore makes perfect sense to talk about the average incoming solar radiation when quantifying the Earth’s energy budget. You wouldn’t use an average when running a complex climate model, and (of course) they don’t.

    • Kev-In-ZA on April 28, 2020 at 1:56 pm said:

      @Man of Thessaly, it makes perfect sense to use the average insolation when talking about the average Effective Emission Temperature of the earth. So, EET of about -18C with average atmosphere emission to space of 240W/m2 balances out with about 240W/m2 inward energy absorbed, “on average”.

      But applying that same averaging below that level leads to propagation error in thinking and meaning. So when the average insolation is used in the EEB, while the total energy in and out is about right and in balance, there is an apparent conundrum that the surface temperature is too cold, and hence a pseudoscience concept of back-radiation of energy from the atmosphere has to be applied to resolve this apparent conundrum. But back-radiation as thermodynamic Heat is bogus pseudoscience. And that propagation error is the source of the radiative GHG warming fantasy.

      Real greenhouses work by stopping convection, not by controlling radiation. So, too, the open atmosphere is not warmed by radiative “trapping”.

    • Richard Treadgold on April 28, 2020 at 3:06 pm said:

      MoT,

      You say:

      It suggests that (like AC current) the sun’s radiation changes direction.

      My apologies, I hadn’t thought this through. It’s been a bit busy. Still, it’s worth paying a bit more attention to what Kev and others are saying.

    • I give up. As others have found, you are a simple-minded know-nothing fool of a man.

    • Richard Treadgold on April 28, 2020 at 3:10 pm said:

      Nick,
      You say:

      As others have found, you are a simple-minded know-nothing fool of a man.

      Kindly clarify who you address with this.

    • @Kev-in-ZA

      But the mean energy so drawn from the mains is not zero, is it, you fucking moron.

    • What’s the matter Nick, has your boyfriend left you? You seem very angry today, using lots of expletives. Tutt tutt Nicky babes. Never mind,

    • Kev-In-ZA on April 28, 2020 at 1:34 pm said:

      Nick, you got it… Likewise the effect and dynamic of full solar insolation dynamic on the earth rotation under that full insolation effect is not the same as the average…
      You got it….good booyyyyyy

Leave a Reply to Nick Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation