tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post304981289854401349..comments2021-04-08T03:39:02.041-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: The Greenhouse Equation predicts temperatures within 0.28°C throughout entire troposphere without radiative forcing from greenhouse gasesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-19291315307560126432014-11-30T14:10:09.506-08:002014-11-30T14:10:09.506-08:00AndyG55, set the TSI as 1361 and the deviations fr...AndyG55, set the TSI as 1361 and the deviations from the ISA disappear.<br />-wayneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-64733885358759688892014-11-30T01:44:57.121-08:002014-11-30T01:44:57.121-08:00"We have good measurements on this as well, a..."We have good measurements on this as well, also well within +/-10 W/m^2.""<br /><br />This is widely believed, but not by scientists at NASA who have estimated the rate of net energy imbalance to be 0.5 Wm-2 with errors an order of magnitude greater (17 Wm-2)<br /><br />You can read a summery of the NASA work here with references and links to the papers:<br /><br />https://geoscienceenvironment.wordpress.com/2014/09/04/the-emperors-of-climate-alarmism-wear-no-clothes/ Frank Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17403044995764984391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-40782579569998304712014-11-30T00:22:36.188-08:002014-11-30T00:22:36.188-08:002007, I'll check on 2010 at work tomorrow
An...2007, I'll check on 2010 at work tomorrow<br /><br />AndyG55Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-2588416946529847802014-11-29T23:27:48.644-08:002014-11-29T23:27:48.644-08:00rounding errors, I assume on the part of Excel sin...rounding errors, I assume on the part of Excel since Wolfram has a much better reputation for math software, but who knows?<br /><br />In any event, that's only a tiny 0.017C difference, negligible<br /><br />What version Excel are you using?MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-2054609799722503112014-11-29T23:14:47.430-08:002014-11-29T23:14:47.430-08:00Darn it,
I have set up the GH equation in MS Exc...Darn it, <br /><br />I have set up the GH equation in MS Excel and I am getting 288.45K at s = 0km and 281.95 at s = 1km.<br /><br />I know this is only a slight difference, but I can't see where it might come from.<br /><br />Just computer error?.. seems too large<br /><br />-------------<br />AndyG55Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-72216606036398254462014-11-29T20:47:27.730-08:002014-11-29T20:47:27.730-08:00The entire greenhouse equation is derived from
1s...The entire greenhouse equation is derived from<br /><br />1st Law of Thermodynamics and the very first assumption made is Ein=Eout<br />Ideal Gas Law<br />Newton's Second Law of Motion F=ma which becomes F=mg<br /><br />That's it.<br /><br />There are far too many steps to prove to you at every point E is conserved, and that radiative forcing is never introduced. Radiance is a function of T, which is a function of mass/gravity/pressure forcing plus radiative forcing from the only power source the Sun. <br /><br />The radiative GHE gets this all backwards.<br /><br />The fact that the equation reproduces the observed average temperature of the troposphere from the surface to ~11,000 meters offers overwhelming evidence this theory is correct. <br /><br />You can't have it both ways - only one of the theories can be correct, otherwise the Earth would be 66K warmer rather than 33K warmer. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-20678447395249772622014-11-29T20:34:28.320-08:002014-11-29T20:34:28.320-08:00You still have not come to grips with the most ba...You still have not come to grips with the most basic issue: the difference between incoming and outgoing radiative power.<br /><br />The earth and its atmosphere absorb about 240 W/m^2 from solar radiation, averaged over time and area (so 240 * Aearth watts). We have good measurements on this, well within +/-10 W/m^2.<br /><br />The earth's surface emits about 390 W/m^2 of infrared radiation, again averaged over time and area (so 390 *Aearth watts). We have good measurements on this as well, also well within +/-10 W/m^2.<br /><br />Nobody, alarmist or skeptic, thinks the earth is more than about 1.0 W/m^2 out of balance. So how do we make up this 150 W/m^2 imbalance?<br /><br />You seem to think this comes from the weight of the atmosphere in earth's gravitational field. This weight is a physical force. For a force to transfer energy it must act while moving over a distance (Work = Force * Distance). The power at any instant from a mechanical force is Force * Velocity (using the components of these vectors in the same direction).<br /><br />We use this in hydroelectrice power to exploit the force of falling water and its resultant velocity through turbines.<br /><br />But the atmosphere has already fallen as far as it can go. So it cannot provide power to the the surface through this mechanism.<br /><br />Through all your math you have not dealt with this basic energy imbalance. In your analysis, how do you rectify this?Captain Curthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12996628642487276952noreply@blogger.com