temperature graph   global Warming      
 Fudge Factor Replaces Science 
 
 Saturation Precludes 
 
     
Gary Novak

Global Warming Home

Alphabetical Page List

Trapping Heat

Dilution Factor

Underlying Science

Chatty Description

Temperature Effects

Equilibrium in Atmosphere

Radiative Transfer Equations

Fudge Factor

Saturation

Greenhouse Gas Mathematics

Temperature Measurements

Recent History

Stefan-Boltzmann

Firing Scientists

Acid in the Oceans

Heinz Hug Measurement

Methane is Weaker

Changing Weather

Oceans not Rising

Heating 2,500°C

Natural Log Curve

Published not as Science

Fake Ice Core Data

Ice Melt Fraud

Future Ice Age

"Delicate Balance" Fraud

Heat-Trapping Gases

Back Radiation is Absurd

The Cause of Ice Ages and Present Climate

Climategate

Second Climategate

Contrivance

The Disputed Area

Zone of Emission Fraud

Errors in Claims

IPCC Propaganda

The 30% Fraud

The 41% Fraud

The Water Vapor Fraud

Humidity Fraud

River, not Window

Hockey Stick Graph

CO2 Charlatanism

A Fake Mechanism

220x10-12 °C

Global Dynamic

Long Wave Infrared Radiation

What about Argo


                

The NASA Flow Chart — Energy Budget

 

New NASA Model, identical to the Kiehl-Trenberth model with minor updated numbers—shows 79% radiation leaving the surface, as Kiehl-Trenberth model does.

398.2 ÷ 398.2 + 18.4 + 86.4 = 79%

 

 
Below: Outdated NASA Model—shows 41% radiation leaving the surface.

Radiation = 15% + 6% = 21%
Total Energy from Surface = 21% + 7% + 23% = 51%
Percent Radiation = 21% ÷ 51% = 41%

Sometime after Kiehl-Trenberth published their model in 1997 showing 79% of the energy leaving the surface of the earth being in the form of radiation, with only 21% being due to conduction, convection and evaporation, NASA produced a model showing 41% radiation instead of 79%. Why? Presumably, trying to regain some credibility, since 79% radiation is too absurd for any scientist to believe. Only white hot metals in a vacuum could emit 79% radiation, not the surface of the earth.

But recently, NASA produced a new model with approximately the same numbers as Kiehl-Trenberth, showing 79% of the energy leaving the surface of the earth as radiation. A few other trivial changes were made for the claimed purpose of updating.

Why did NASA recently cave to the ridiculous 79% radiation? One reason might have been the fact that science is never wrong, and Kiehl-Trenberth published so long ago that their model is incorporated into IPCC reports. More importantly, Kiehl-Trenberth used the Stefan-Boltzmann constant to derive their number. To reduce the radiation to 41%, as NASA originally did, is to defy the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, which is not what science does.

What this shows is that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant is so ridiculous that it will not produce a credible result.

Emissivity Omitted

In addition to the absurdly high radiation required by the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, the 390 W/m˛ (revised to 398.2) radiation leaving from the surface of the earth is supposed to be adjusted for emissivity, which is now days said to be 0.64 for the earth’s surface. This means 0.64 times 398.2, which equals 255 W/m˛ instead of 398.2 W/m˛. Yet the recently produced NASA energy budget continues to show the same numbers as the Kiehl-Trenberth model.

Presumably, when the Kiehl-Trenberth model was produced in 1997, a number did not exist for the emissivity of the earth’s surface, so it was omitted. Later, the model by NASA reduced the radiation from 79% to 41%, presumably attempting to make it look more credible. But by then, the Kiehl-Trenberth number had been enshrined in several editions of the IPCC reports, so NASA apparently felt maintaining the same number would be less incriminating than reducing it to almost one half. And still, emissivity was not used to reduce the number to 255 W/m˛, which shows that a consistent absurdity was more important to them than correct scientific procedures.

link at IPCC

 

 

           
 
gbwm