the cool Stefan-Boltzmann law which accurately predicts the surface temperature of any planet

[ultron]

The Stefan–Boltzmann law is incredibly accurate at predicting any planet's average surface temperature. The equation is

T = 100 * (I / (5.67 * e)) ^ 0.25

, where the output T in units K is the surface's temperature, the input I in units W/m2 is the surface's absorbed solar radiation, the input e is the surface's emissivity which is the surface's ability to emit infrared energy.

Let's try this law on planet Earth.

The albedo of Earth's surface is found to be 0.30. The Sun's incoming solar radiation is found to be 341 W/m2.
I = absorbed solar radiation = incoming solar radiation - reflected solar radiation = 341 - 341 * 0.30 = 239.

The emissivity of Earth's surface is found to be 0.612.

Input 239 for I and 0.612 for e, the equation outputs T = 100 * (239 / (5.67 * 0.612)) ^ 0.25 = 288 K, which is 15 C, which is exactly the observed value.

Alarmists assume Earth's surface is a perfect black body, so they have 1 as the value of emissivity, and they calculate Earth's surface temperature as T = 100 * (239 / (5.67 * 1)) ^ 0.25 = 255 K, which is -18 C, which is 33 C less than the observed value.

I quote

This absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere—the natural greenhouse effect—is beneficial for life on Earth. If there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be a very chilly -18°C (0°F) instead of the comfortable 15°C (59°F) that it is today.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

 

[Ragnar]

I am sure oil companies will be very glad to hear this...

 

[ultron]

I am sure oil companies will be very glad to hear this...

This result is going to get reported to the next Senate hearing. The fraud done by alarmists is alarming. The entire greenhouse effect does not even add 0.1 C.

Dr. Latour's last slide of his presentation debunks alarmist greenhouse effect of 33 C.

 

[ssethii]

greenhouse gasses are necessary to keep life going but that is ensured by nature itself through plants and decaying of hydrocarbons and other sources. This is well documented fact that the industrial revolution has shifted the balance to an alarming level, anyone denying this fact is naive to the umpteenth degree.

 

[ultron]

greenhouse gasses are necessary to keep life going but that is ensured by nature itself through plants and decaying of hydrocarbons and other sources. This is well documented fact that the industrial revolution has shifted the balance to an alarming level, anyone denying this fact is naive to the umpteenth degree.

Prove it.

 

[ssethii]

Prove it.

prove it, this is a chair.

 

[ultron]

prove it, this is a chair.

That's not a chair. That's the picture of a chair.

 

[Ragnar]

SUVs are cool, only fags drive hybrids..

 

[ssethii]

That's not a chair. That's the picture of a chair.

ok,now prove it, this is a chair in this picture.

 

[ultron]

ok,now prove it, this is a chair in this picture.

If it looks like a chair, it is a chair. Ask a 3 year old and you get that answer

 

[TruthSeeker]

I have a PhD in Solid State Physics from the University of Illinois. I am totally in the camp of "climate change deniers" Primarily, I don't believe that the climate change proponents can possibly demonstrate, with scientific certainty, the validity of their models. While changes in the light energy trapping gasses in the atmosphere (i.e. water vapor, CO2, Methane, etc) may cause changes in one part of the energy balance equation, many other factors may cause an opposite change. Until there is a model that can take the reliable planetary data from the past 200 years and replicate the changes that have been measured over those years, I won't believe that the "science of climate change" is settled. I believe it is today, instead, a vast scam for funding and economic advantage on the part of all of the many vociferous actors that benefit from the crisis narrative that they put forward. The attempt to squelch all criticism (the labeling of people like me as "deniers") is the best indication that they are afraid that their scam will be revealed at any moment.

 

[ssethii]

If it looks like a chair, it is a chair. Ask a 3 year old and you get that answer

this is an opinion not a prove.
Consider earth as a control system. You want to prove the robustness of the given system to the drift in one of it's parameter which is temperature in this case. Now unless you can have a model of that system you cannot prove it. So the best possible guess is by observing the behavior of the system under such change and this is what environmentalist are being doing since decades if not centuries.Their conclusions have shown the world that the rise in temperature is gradually causing extreme changes that are challenging to the life on earth.

 

[ultron]

this is an opinion not a prove.
Consider earth as a control system. You want to prove the robustness of the given system to the drift in one of it's parameter which is temperature in this case. Now unless you can have a model of that system you cannot prove it. So the best possible guess is by observing the behavior of the system under such change and this is what environmentalist are being doing since decades if not centuries.Their conclusions have shown the world that the rise in temperature is gradually causing extreme changes that are challenging to the life on earth.

There is no data that supports the greenhouse gas theory due to CO2. They don't tell people that oxygen and nitrogen are greenhouse gases because they absorb heat from the ground by conduction (they CANNOT be heated by radiation) and then once they are heated they re emit IR (any object that has heat MUST emit IR radiation) back at the ground therefore retains heat. CO2 is a negligible part of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

The only thing that CO2 can do that O2 and N2 cannot do is it can be heated by radiation. That's it.

 

[ssethii]

There is no data that supports the greenhouse gas theory due to CO2. They don't tell people that oxygen and nitrogen are greenhouse gases because they absorb heat from the ground by conduction (they CANNOT be heated by radiation) and then once they are heated they re emit IR (any object that has heat MUST emit IR radiation) back at the ground therefore retains heat. CO2 is a negligible part of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

The only thing that CO2 can do that O2 and N2 cannot do is it can be heated by radiation. That's it.

 

[ultron]

Look it up. What's the difference between CO2 / H2O and O2 / N2? There is only 1 difference. The former can be heated by radiation. The latter cannot.