Very informative explanation of the problems in this situation. Thank you!
It will be difficult to arrive at honest conclusions when there are so many outside interests trying to move the standards toward what they want.
In your footnote 2, the last point starts "• The phrase appears only in footnote 2093: " Does this mean that there are this many footnotes to the document? That is a lot to try to comprehend.
Balance is closed, done, over, fini, “Ttthhhat’s ALL folks!!”
So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?
396 is the S-B BB calculation for any surface at 16 C, 289 K, that serves as the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.
It is a theoretical calculation.
It is not real.
It is a duplicate “extra.”
It violates LoT 1.
396 up – 2nd 63 LWIR (How convenient.) = 333 “back” from cold to hot w/o work violating LoT 2.
Not that it matters.
Erase the 396/333/63 GHE “extra” energy loop from the graphic and the balance holds true.
IR instruments do not measure power flux, they are calibrated to report a referenced temperature and infer power flux assuming the target is a BB. (Read the manual.)
16 C + BB = 396 & incorrect.
16 C + 0.16 = 63 & correct.
There is no GHE.
There is no GHG warming.
There is no CAGW,
The consensus is wrong – Aahhgain!!!
Disagree?
Bring science which is not appeals to authority, off topic esoteric Wiki handwavium and ad hominem gas lighting and insults.
Nice post showing the irrationality of the SEC rule making.
As for businesses, they should highlight that the real danger to their nottom line is actually the government's climate policies, not the weather, or climate.
And include the costs of "compliance" with this nonsense.
Very informative explanation of the problems in this situation. Thank you!
It will be difficult to arrive at honest conclusions when there are so many outside interests trying to move the standards toward what they want.
In your footnote 2, the last point starts "• The phrase appears only in footnote 2093: " Does this mean that there are this many footnotes to the document? That is a lot to try to comprehend.
“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ― Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Believe = religion
Think = opinion
Know = science
What I know follows.
What do you know that’s different?
Published (SubStack, X, MSN, PAPundits, et. al.)
Peer reviewed (the world)
And undisputed (so far)
ISR at ToA = 1,368 W/m^2.
From the Sun’s perspective Earth is a flat, discular, pin head.
To average that discular energy over a spherical surface divide by 4.
(disc = π r^2, sphere = 4 π r^2)
1,368/4=342.
(Not even close to how the Earth heats & cools + this is Fourier’s model which even Pierrehumbert says is no good.)
Deduct 30% albedo.
(Clouds, ice, snow created by GHE/water vapor.)
342*(1.0-0.3)=240.
Deduct 80 due to atmospheric absorption.
(If this were so ToA would be warmer than surface.)
Net/net of 160 arrives at surface.
Per LoT 1 160 is ALL!! that can leave.
17 sensible + 80 latent + 63 (by remaining diff) LWIR = 160
Balance is closed, done, over, fini, “Ttthhhat’s ALL folks!!”
So where does this 396 second source of surface upwelling heat flow come from?
396 is the S-B BB calculation for any surface at 16 C, 289 K, that serves as the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.
It is a theoretical calculation.
It is not real.
It is a duplicate “extra.”
It violates LoT 1.
396 up – 2nd 63 LWIR (How convenient.) = 333 “back” from cold to hot w/o work violating LoT 2.
Not that it matters.
Erase the 396/333/63 GHE “extra” energy loop from the graphic and the balance holds true.
IR instruments do not measure power flux, they are calibrated to report a referenced temperature and infer power flux assuming the target is a BB. (Read the manual.)
16 C + BB = 396 & incorrect.
16 C + 0.16 = 63 & correct.
There is no GHE.
There is no GHG warming.
There is no CAGW,
The consensus is wrong – Aahhgain!!!
Disagree?
Bring science which is not appeals to authority, off topic esoteric Wiki handwavium and ad hominem gas lighting and insults.
Nice post showing the irrationality of the SEC rule making.
As for businesses, they should highlight that the real danger to their nottom line is actually the government's climate policies, not the weather, or climate.
And include the costs of "compliance" with this nonsense.
Government = corruption and ideological capture. Gee, I wonder why people mistrust federal agencies.