Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

So you agree that what I said is a fact?

Are you contradicting your earlier claim that SI does account for all of it?

parados, That calculation would depend on the type of bulb, so even a 100w bulb may eat up less energy.

It is still a 100w bulb and watts doesn't tell you anything other than power at the moment. Only watt-hours will tell you the energy but I didn't ask for that.

That is the mistake ican made and I corrected him on and he is now pretending he wasn't corrected about it.

ican, you asked

Notice you did NOT ask for kwh. You asked for kw.

Here is my response.


Your response


My further post -


Your answer which is clearly wrong.


my response


Now you come out with this.....


Well DUH.. that is what I have said all along.
Your answer of 523 billion kilowatts is WRONG. I think you need to correct YOURSELF.

Foxfyre--I am going to put you in the middle. I know you are fair and will be judicious in your answer. Parados wrote:

I notice you haven't said a word to genoves about his childish insults contained in every post he seems to make. Is this your retaliation for asking you to support your statement on another thread after you said it was contained in your links and I pointed out it wasn't?
end of parados quote
If you think my posts are childish insults, I will accept your judgment., If you do not think they are childish insults, I will also accept your judgment. However< I still think that Parados continues his debate with Ican on a miniscule point which is peripheral to the question of the topic.

GLOBAL WARMING...NEW REPORT,,AND IT AIN'T HAPPY NEWS>

I still maintain that anyone reading my posts on this thread will have to conclude that the evidence shows that the IPCC( THE UN'S ARM) on global warming has concluded that SEA LEVEL RISE HAS BEEN RECEDING.

Parados is unable thus far to rebut this fact. It is a CRITICAL fact--not a borderline "How many watts is this" kind of fact.

If Parados is unable to rebut my evidence, he should do so. AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, UNTIL HE DOES SO( he will not be able to do so) IT STANDS and shows that Parados is afraid to confront the issue.

Here is more proof that Sea Level Rise needs to be looked at very carefully. The author, who has been on the IPCC, states that none of the scientists involved in the study for the IPCC were sea level experts, BUT ONLY COMPUTER SCIENTISTS.

Note:

Sea-level Expert: It's Not Rising!
Why coastal dwellers should not live in fear of inundation.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner was interviewed by Associate Editor Gregory Murphy on June 6. The interview here is abridged; a full version appeared in Executive Intelligence Review, June 22, 2007.

Question: I would like to start with a little bit about your background.
I am a sea-level specialist. There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let's put it this way: There's no one who's beaten me. I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level problem. From then on I have launched most of the new theories, in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. I was the one who understood the problem of the gravitational potential surface, the theory that it changes with time. I'm the one who studied the rotation of the Earth, how it affected the redistribution of the oceans' masses. And so on.

I was president of INQUA, an international fraternal association, their Commission on Sea-Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, from 1999 to 2003. And in order to do something intelligent there, we launched a special international sea-level research project in the Maldives, because that's the hottest spot on Earth for (this topic)"there are so many variables interacting there, so it was interesting, and also people had claimed that the Maldives"about 1,200 small islands"were doomed to disappear in 50 years, or at most, 100 years. So that was a very important target.

I have had my own research institute at Stockholm University, which was devoted to something called paleogeophysics and geodynamics. It's primarily a research institute, but lots of students came, I have several Ph.D. theses at my institute, and lots of visiting professors and research scientists came to learn about sea level. Working in this field, I don't think there's a spot on the Earth I haven't been in! In the northmost, Greenland; and in Antarctica; and all around the Earth, and very much at the coasts.

So I have primary data from so many places, that when I'm speaking, I don't do it out of ignorance, but on the contrary, I know what I'm talking about. And I have interaction with other scientific branches, because it's very important to see the problems not just from one eye, but from many different aspects. Sometimes you dig up some very important thing in some geodesic paper which no other geologist would read. And you must have the time and the courage to go into the big questions, and I think I have done that.

The last 10 years or so, of course, everything has been the discussion on sea level, which they say is drowning us. In the early '90s, I was in Washington giving a paper on how the sea level is not rising, as they said. That had some echoes around the world.

Question: What is the real state of the sea-level?
You have to look at that in a lot of different ways. That is what I have done in a lot of different papers, so we can confine ourselves to the short story here. One way is to look at the global picture, to try to find the essence of what is going on. And then we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-1940. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year; 1.1 is the exact figure. Not more. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure....

There's another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases as a result of sea level rise, then immediately the Earth's rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? You have it in figure-skating: when skaters rotate very fast, the arms are close to the body; and then when they increase the radius, by putting out their arms, they stop by themselves. So you can look at the rotation and you see the same thing: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it's a matter of physics.

So, we have this 1 mm per year up to 1930, by observation, and we have it by rotation recording. So we go with those two. They go up and down, but there's no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There's no trend, absolutely no trend.

Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. We have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you should not use.

And if that (2.3 mm) figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean, as measured by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, (the graph of the sea level) was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Data Fudged
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their (IPCC's) publications, in their website, was a straight line"suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something, but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original data which they suddenly twisted up, because they entered a "correction factor," which they took from the tide gauge.

So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences meeting in Moscow"I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They know" the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modelling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

I have been an expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it (the report), I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them"none"were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The meteorological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don't do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it's not the first thing.

So there we are. Then we went to the Maldives. I traced a drop in sea level in the 1970s, and the fishermen told me, "Yes, you are correct, because we remember""things in their sailing routes have changed, things in their harbor have changed. I worked in the lagoon, I drilled in the sea, I drilled in lakes, I looked at the shore morphology"so many different environments. Always the same thing: In about 1970, the sea fell about 20 cm, for reasons involving probably evaporation or something. Not a change in volume or something like that"it was a rapid thing. The new level, which has been stable, has not changed in the last 35 years. You can trace it so very, very carefully. No rise at all is the answer there.

The Case of Tuvalu
Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are supposed to soon disappear because they've put out too much carbon dioxide. There we have a tide gauge record, a variograph record, from 1978, so it's 30 years. And again, if you look there, absolutely no trend, no rise.

So, from where do they get this rise in the Tuvalu Islands?

We know in the Tuvalu Islands that there was a Japanese pineapple industry which extracted too much fresh water from the inland, and those islands have very little fresh water available from precipitation, rain. So, if you take out too much, you destroy the water magazine, and you bring seawater into the magazine, which is not nice. So they took out too much freshwater and in came salt water. And of course the local people were upset. But then it was much easier to say, "No, no! It's the global sea level rising! It has nothing to do with our extraction of freshwater." So there you have it. This is a local industry which doesn't pay.

You have Vanuatu, and also in the Pacific, north of New Zealand and Fiji"there is the island Tegua. They said they had to evacuate it, because the sea level was rising. But again, you look at the tide-gauge record: There is absolutely no signal that the sea level is rising. If anything, you could say that maybe the tide is lowering a little bit, but absolutely no rising.

And again, where do they (the IPCC) get it from? They get it from their inspiration, their hopes, their computer models, but not from observation, which is terrible.

Venice
We have Venice. Venice is well known, because that area is tectonically, because of the delta, slowly subsiding. The rate has been constant over time. A rising sea level would immediately accelerate the flooding. And it would be so simple to record it. And if you look at that 300-year record: In the 20th Century it was going up and down, around the subsidence rate. In 1970, you should have an acceleration, but instead, the rise almost finished. So it was the opposite.

If you go around the globe, you find no rise anywhere. But they need the rise, because if there is no rise, there is no death threat. They say there is nothing good to come from a sea-level rise, only problems, coastal problems. If you have a temperature rise, if it's a problem in one area, it's beneficial in another area. But sea level is the real "bad guy," and therefore they have talked very much about it. But the real thing is, that it doesn't exist in observational data, only in computer modelling....

I'll tell you another thing: When I came to the Maldives, to our enormous surprise, one morning we were on an island, and I said, "This is something strange, the storm level has gone down; it has not gone up, it has gone down." And then I started to check the level all around, and I asked the others in the group, "Do you see anything here on the beach?" And after a while they found it too. And as we had investigated, and we were sure, I said we cannot leave the Maldives and go home and say the sea level is not rising, it's not respectful to the people. I have to say it to Maldive television.

So we made a very nice program for Maldive television, but it was forbidden by the government (!) because they thought that they would lose money. They accuse the West for putting out carbon dioxide, and therefore we have to pay for our damage and the flooding. So they wanted the flooding scenario to go on.

This tree, which I showed in the documentary, is interesting. This is a prison island, and when people left the island, from the '50s, it was a marker for them, when they saw this tree alone out there, they said, "Ah, freedom!" ... I knew that this tree was in that terrible position already in the 1950s. So the slightest rise, and it would have been gone. I used it in my writings and for television.

You know what happened? There came an Australian sea-level team, which was for the IPCC and against me. Then the students pulled down the tree by hand! They destroyed the evidence. What kind of people are those? And we came to launch this film "Doomsday Called Off," right after that, and the tree was still green. And I heard from the locals that they had seen the people who had pulled it down. So I put it up again, by hand, and made my TV program....

They call themselves scientists, and they're destroying evidence! A scientist should always be open for reinterpretation, but you can never destroy evidence. And they were being watched, thinking they were clever.
******************************************************************

I am sure that Parados won't read this because he is fearful that he can't answer its charges.

Yes, Parados,. I read your link. I am not like you -afraid to read evidence. and I will respond to your link. Actual Observations used to drive global climate models of course are based on the algorithms put into the models. The point still holds--Not enough is known about the clouds and their effects. If you read my post you would know that the IPCC itself acknowledges this.

Dr.Lindzen does not agree with the findings of CERES. Note-
********************************************************
There are two sources of thin cirrus clouds. One is the detrainment of deep convective anvil clouds, which spread, precipitate, and evaporate to become thin cirrus in the neighborhood of cumulus cloud clusters. The other is the thick cumulus clouds that are left behind propagating large-scale atmospheric disturbances and decay rapidly to become thin cirrus that contribute to the supply of water vapor in the upper troposphere. The upper-tropospheric water vapor may later form thin cirrus clouds because of atmospheric wave motions (Boehm and Verlinde 2000). These thin cirrus clouds are widespread and can persist for a long period of time because of large-scale lifting of air in the Tropics (Boehm et al. 1999). By analyzing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration High Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder radiance data, Wylie et al. (1994) estimated a global cirrus cloud cover of 40%. By taking into consideration the extended areal coverage and the low albedo of thin cirrus clouds, LCH specified the mean albedo of high-level clouds to be 0.24. With a fractional coverage of 0.25 and an albedo of 0.42 specified for the low boundary layer clouds, the albedo of the cloudy-moist region is then 0.35, which can be compared with the albedo of 0.51 as derived by Lin et al. using TRMM CERES and VIRS data. It appears that Lin et al. significantly underestimated the high-level cloud cover and overestimated the high-level cloud albedo and, hence, overestimated the sensitivity of shortwave radiation to high-level clouds.

We conclude that Lin et al. greatly underestimated the areal coverage and overestimated the albedo of the cloudy-moist region. The areal coverage of high-level clouds in the Tropics should be much greater than the value of 10% as estimated by Lin et al. The albedo of 0.51 of the cloudy-moist region as estimated by Lin et al. is representative of thick anvil clouds but is not the mean albedo of high-level cloudy regions. If we assume that their estimates of the OLR in the three tropical regions are appropriate for studying the climate sensitivity, the feedback factors of high-level clouds should remain negative as suggested by LCH, although the magnitudes are somewhat smaller, typically by 20%, which is still large when compared with the weak positive feedback as estimated by Lin et al.

source- Journal of Climate--Article PP. 2713-2715
Volumen 15,18

You still have not responded to this_Parados. Is the IPCC correct when it writes about the massive problems concerning clouds and their influence on measuring global warming?

Note:

From Wikipedia--

The effects of clouds are a significant area of uncertainty in climate models. Clouds have competing effects on the climate. One of the roles that clouds play in climate is in cooling the surface by reflecting sunlight back into space; another is warming by increasing the amount of infrared radiation emitted from the atmosphere to the surface. [17] In the 2001 IPCC report on climate change, the possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as one of the dominant uncertainties in predicting future climate change; see also [18].

Foxfyre wrote:

On Feb. 18 the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that from early January until the middle of this month, a defective performance by satellite monitors that measure sea ice caused an underestimation of the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles, which is approximately the size of California. The Times ("All the news that's fit to print"), which as of this writing had not printed that story, should unleash Revkin and his unnamed experts.

end of quote.

A DEFECTIVE PERFORMANCE BY SATELLITE MONITORS THAT MEASURE SEA ICE CAUSING AN UNDERESTIMATION OF THE EXTENT OF ARCTIC SEA ICE BY 193,000 SQUARE MILES?

How could this be? I have not seen any comment by Parados on this matter.

Why Not?

PARADOS THINKS A DEBATE ALLOWS A DEBATER TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT HE WILL RESPOND TO...THE DEBATER MAY DO THAT, AS PARADOS IS DOING BUT THE JUDGE WILL DECLARE THAT THE SNIVELING COWARD PARADOS LOST.
Parados STILL has not been able to rebut the fact that the IPCC has lowered its predictions of sea level rise after each report.

What a coward!!!!!


I am, of course, aware that the major player in these scientific studies is the IPCC, sponsored by the UN. I have clear evidence to show that the IPCC's reports in 2007 showed a REVISION DOWNWARDS of Sea Level Rise.

If the IPCC revised their predictions from their previous studies, it is not at all unlikely that there may be revisions in the future.
Note the findings of the IPCC. Note that these findings were made using models. That means that data were fed into computers by scientists to model what temperatures might be in ninety years. That means that the scientists who set up these models were able to ACCURATELY PREDICT THE ACTION OF CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS AND VOLCANOES AND THE INTERACTION OF THESE FACTORS FOR THE NEXT NINETY YEARS

quote from Wikipedia on IPCC
********************************************************


There are six families of SRES Scenarios, and AR4 provides projected temperature and sea level rises for each scenario family.

Scenario B1
Best estimate temperature rise of 1.8 °C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 °C (3.2 °F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [18 to 38 cm] (7 to 15 inches)
Scenario A1T
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 45 cm] (8 to 18 inches)
Scenario B2
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.4 °C with a likely range of 1.4 to 3.8 °C (4.3 °F with a likely range of 2.5 to 6.8 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [20 to 43 cm] (8 to 17 inches)
Scenario A1B
Best estimate temperature rise of 2.8 °C with a likely range of 1.7 to 4.4 °C (5.0 °F with a likely range of 3.1 to 7.9 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [21 to 48 cm] (8 to 19 inches)
Scenario A2
Best estimate temperature rise of 3.4 °C with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.4 °C (6.1 °F with a likely range of 3.6 to 9.7 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [23 to 51 cm] (9 to 20 inches)
Scenario A1FI
Best estimate temperature rise of 4.0 °C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 °C (7.2 °F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 °F)
Sea level rise likely range [26 to 59 cm] (10 to 23 inches)



An examination of the IPCC findings shows that the MEDIAN TEMPERATURE RISE WILL BE( SEE SCENARIO B2 AND A1B) AND TAKE THE MID POINT BETWEEN THEM--2.6 C. rise by 2100.

It is most important to understand that the IPCC HAS REVISED ITS FINDINGS OVER AND OVER. THESE FIGURES ARE NOT WRITTEN IN STONE AND SINCE THEY ARE FINDINGS MADE THROUGH MODELING CAN SHOW DIFFERENCES.

Let us examine what the IPCC has said about Sea Level Rises---

In its report the IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century..since 1860 we have experienced a sea level rise of about a foot--no major disruptions. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT THE NEW PREDICTION IS L O W E R THAN THE PREVIOUS IPCC ESTIMATES AND MUCH LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATES FROM 1990 OF MORE THAN TWO FEET AND FROMTHE 1980'S WHEN THE EPA PROJECTED MORE THAN SIX FEET BY 2 100.

Note the above--Parados who is afraid of me has not rebutted the documented fact that the IPCC has lowered its predictions for sea level rise since it has been reporting>



Parados STILL has not been able to address the last paragraph of this post which is a quote from the IPCC.

Again, Ican, Parados, who is afraid of my facts and will not try to rebut them but instead posts ridiculous graphs and meaningless links. Apparently, he does not know that the questions about climate--How it changes, why it changes and the RELATIVE influence of each factor on climate and the interaction of these influences on each other---that these questions are unsettled.

Here, ICAN, is a major question which I am sure is not settled yet. Parados will not be able to answer it because he is hiding. But,I am sure you will be interested in it.

THE IPCC FOUND:

caps mine--
"Probably the GREATEST UNCERTAINTY in future projections of climate arise from clouds and their interactions with radiation...Clouds represent A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF POTENTIAL ERROR in climate simulations...The sign of the net cloud feedback is still A MATTER OF UNCERTAINTY, and the various models exhibit a LARGE SPREAD. Further UNCERTAINTIES arise from precipitation processes and the difficulty in CORRECTLY SIMULATING THE DIURNAL CYCLE AND PRECIPITATION AMOUNTS AND FREQUENCIES>"

ICAN-- that is a finding of the IPCC.

PARADOS IS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO THAT! Parados has not rebutted the evidence in this post. Why not?



Note_


7.2.2.2. 2001 IPCC report.

If sea-level changes occur slowly, economically rational decisions could be made to protect only property that is worth more than its protection costs. With foresight, settlements can be planned to avoid much of the potential cost of protection, given that between 50 and 100 years are expected to pass before a 1-m sea-level rise would be expected. Yohe and Neumann (1997) offer a method by which this planning might be applied. This method can reduce the costs of protection by more than an order of magnitude. Yohe et al. (1996) estimate discounted (at 3% yr-1) cumulative U.S. national protection costs plus property abandonment costs for a 1-m sea-level rise by the end of the 21st century at US$5-6 billion, as opposed to previous estimates of $73-111 billion (Smith and Tirpak, 1989)

****************************************************************

AND ACCORDING TO THE IPCC SUMMARY WHICH I HAVE POSTED SEVERAL TIMES, THE SEA LEVEL RISE IS INDEED TAKING PLACE SLOWLY..

Parados is afraid to respond to Farmerman's challenge--

Here is another post that Parados has not addressed. He has NOT rebutted the fact that Sea Level Rise predictions are being lowered:

This post is from Farmerman:

farmerman

1 Reply report Wed 11 Feb, 2009 05:46 am TWo marine geologists, John Kraft and Rhoads Fairbridge had, in the late 1970's predicted a global sea level rise that ,since new elements of isostacy and continental movement were factored in, have since reduced their own (then) famous curves significantly. Much of these predictions of water temps and sea level elevations are WAG's at best, and downright fraudulent at worst. The rush to publish a lot of crap data is where weve gotten into a lot of messes with the entire global warming mantra. Axial precession, change in sol,ar luminosity, release of continental heat sinks and the various planetary cycles havent even been factored accurately into the equation and still many insist that global warming is human induced and weve gotta curtail all commerce to stem it.
Jeez, Im sorry, I try to be open minded about a lot but Im still not seeing the relationship even of CO2 as a "causitive element" in climate hange. ALl Im seeing in the paleoclimate data is that CO2 is a "following" indicator. (temperatures change, then CO2 is released) .
****************************************************************
PARADOS THINKS A DEBATE ALLOWS A DEBATER TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT HE WILL RESPOND TO...THE DEBATER MAY DO THAT, AS PARADOS IS DOING BUT THE JUDGE WILL DECLARE THAT THE SNIVELING COWARD PARADOS LOST.
Parados STILL has not been able to rebut the fact that the IPCC has lowered its predictions of sea level rise after each report.

What a coward!!!!!


I am, of course, aware that the major player in these scientific studies is the IPCC, sponsored by the UN. I have clear evidence to show that the IPCC's reports in 2007 showed a REVISION DOWNWARDS of Sea Level Rise.

If the IPCC revised their predictions from their previous studies, it is not at all unlikely that there may be revisions in the future.
Note the findings of the IPCC. Note that these findings were made using models. That means that data were fed into computers by scientists to model what temperatures might be in ninety years. That means that the scientists who set up these models were able to ACCURATELY PREDICT THE ACTION OF CLOUDS, OCEAN CURRENTS AND VOLCANOES AND THE INTERACTION OF THESE FACTORS FOR THE NEXT NINETY YEARS

quote from Wikipedia on IPCC
********************************************************

If that 100 watt bulb is turned on for 100 hours, then you will have 100 watts on for 100 hours. In other words your bulb will have consumed 10,000 watt-hours, or 10 kilowatt-hours.

So 10,000 watt hours = 10,000 x 2655 ft.-lbs. = 10,000,000 x 2.655 = 2.655 x 10 million ft.-lbs.

CORRECTION
IF SI were one twenty-fourth of a watt per square meter of the earth's surface area per hour, OR 1/24 WATT PER SQUARE METER OF THE EARTH'S SURFACE PER HOUR = 523/24 BILLION KILOWATTS PER EARTH'S ENTIRE SURFACE PER HOUR = 21.792 BILLION KILOWATTS PER EARTH'S ENTIRE SURFACE PER HOUR ,
THEN how many kilowatt-HOURs are received by the entire earth's surface area in 24 hours?

By the way, the correct answer to my IF ...THEN ... test question for parados is 523 billion kilowatt-HOURs.

(That is, all of the AAGT increase.)
That was not my earlier claim or claims. My later statement contradicting my earlier claims was merely my example of how you might make your sophistries more interesting and less silly.

My EARLIER claims repeatedly have been that SI increases and decreases are a MAJOR cause of AAGT increases and decreases.

Gee.. it's easy to change watt hours to foot pounds because they are both energy and have an equivalence.

But -
2655 foot pounds is equal to how many watts?

Remember - YOU asked for watts, not watthours in your question. So, how many watts (without time) in 2655 foot pounds.

Yes, you finally got it correct after being told 4 times and arguing you were correct when you were obviously wrong.

This goes directly to your other arguments. You don't have a clue so make stuff up and argue about it for days before you finally realize you were wrong.

That's funny ican. So you didn't say that SI was the ONLY factor?

You provided NO other possible factors so your statement certainly implies that SI was the SOLE reason for increases in AAGT.

If you are going to argue that SI is not the sole reason then your calculations are worth nothing. If it isn't solely SI, then what is it? Please explain your statements. If an increase and decrease prove something can NOT be a cause please provide something that has increased the entire time that AAGT has increased and decreased when it hasn't.

The problem with your math ican is you fail to account for other variables and you draw conclusions based on your failure to account for them.

SOME RELEVANT NUMBERS

One watt per square meter = one billion watts per one billion square meters;

10,000 meters = 6.2 miles;

radius of the earth = 4,000 miles;

radius of the earth = (4000/6.2) x 10,000 = 6451612.903 meters;

Surface area of the earth = 4 x pi x radius^2 = 523 x 10^12 square meters;

523 x 10^12 square meters = 523 billion square kilometers;

One watt per square meter = 523 billion kilowatts per THE EARTH'S TOTAL SURFACE AREA OF 523 billion square kilometers.

MY HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION

IF SI were one twenty-fourth of a watt per square meter of the earth's surface area per hour,
THEN how many kilowatts are received by the entire earth's surface area in 24 hours?

ANSWER TO MY HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION

523 billion kilowatts per 24 HOUR DAY = 523 billion kilowatt-HOURS.

PREVIOUSLY POSTED MULTIPLE TIMES

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, A-AAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases.

CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE,1901-2000, in °K
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE in °K
A-AAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM