Lol!
Basically, global warming theories assume that every part of the planet receives the same amount of solar radiation at the same angle, and that the Sun is always shining onto the planet’s surface (no allocation for night).
In other words, they assume that the Earth is flat with the Sun hanging directly overhead all the time. Flat Earth.
This makes it easier (e.g. no longer impossible) to apply their calculations and estimate the impact that so-and-so amount of greenhouse gas will have on global temperatures (which, again, are not uniform in reality).
Without assuming a flat Earth, with their current capabilities scientists simply cannot source and interpret all the data that is needed to make a reasonably accurate prediction.
Via Ace of Spades HQ, from Don Surber:
The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities. It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth’s surface is constant.
The total energy entering is made equal to the energy leaving. In this way it is now possible to calculate the effect of additional greenhouse gases. If it was not “balanced” and the balance varied it would be impossible to calculate.what are the effects of additional greenhouse gases.
It ought to be obvious. The earth does actually rotate. The sun does not shine at night. The temperature is not constant. Every part of the earth has a different energy input from its output.
There is a correct mathematical treatment. It would involve the division of the earth’s surface into a large number of tiny increments, and the energy input and output calculated for each one, using the changes in all the factors involved. There would then have to be a gigantic integration of all these results to give a complete energy budget for the earth. Only when this is done and repeated over a long period will it be possible to find the influence of increases in greenhouse gases.
See also related junk-science comparison at Global Warming Theory is to Environmentalism as Blood Letting is to Healthcare.
And remember:
- Global Warming is Unfactual – Seriously, they’ve already admitted no warming in past 15 years.
THE SCOTTTCAST 
April 30, 10 at 11:45 pm
No it isn’t and you’re a fool to propose that nonsense.
May 1, 10 at 2:32 am
Odd argument to make against AWG considering the Bible supports a flat earth theory. God himself instructs Job with this stern rebuke: “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?”
May 1, 10 at 9:56 am
There you go, Ron, again taking scripture out of context and making it mean what you want it to mean.
May 1, 10 at 11:09 am
Carolina Kathy says:
April 21, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Very interesting, Don. This climate stuff is an onion, the more you peel away the more you just want to cry.
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/12704
May 1, 10 at 11:22 am
Vincent Gray is indeed correct about the Flat Earth model. The actual top-of-atmosphere solar radiance the earth is exposed to is about 1368 watts per square meter. Climate modelers divide this figure by four, though, because they don’t quite know how to “wrap” this radiance around a spherical earth. Thus you see 342 watts per square meter coming out of the sky instead of 1368. This “correction” effectively makes the earth a flat surface exposed to the radiance of an eternal twilight, which imposes a severe distortion on expected temperatures.
See http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/GlobalScam3a.pdf for more details, particularly section 4.2.
Alan Siddons
April 15, 11 at 8:15 am
Not to mention that the layers of the atmosphere are thinner as you go to the poles. Most data on thawing of glaciers is from the poles, whereas little temperature and climatic data exist for the tropics, and the data that exists does not support anthropogenic global warming (i.e., weather balloons sent 10 km up for decades have not found the “greenhouse signature”). For the polar ice caps to melt, the heat from AGW would need to be carried from the tropics via water and wind. Land-based temperature readings are largely misread or inaccurate, and the disproportions between global surface temp data and regional surface temp data are not accounted for.
Cap and Trade – Bad Medicine for a Sick Economy by Joel Skousen
April 15, 11 at 10:07 am
Thanks for the tip Preston! I haven’t been to the more technical blogs on global warming for a while.
February 11, 13 at 10:46 am
[…] Global Warming is Literally Based on Flat Earth Theory […]