I am not anticipating a clear answer. Now, prove me wrong.
You don't disappoint.
The number shown on the graphic is not the same as the solar constant. We've been over and over this one. Does that or does it not mean that you think that the number is wrong?
Answer the question yourself. What is the number shown on the graphic? What is the solar constant? Are they the same? Have I, or have I not gone to great lengths to explain the math and why the numbers aren't the same,(followed by more predictable WCT crap. )
So, the numbers are not the same. The solar constant is not the same as the number on the graphic. The solar constant that relies on a flat disk, which is what you say the graphic is about.
No, I do not grasp the math in which you can simultaneously claim that the actual energy from the sun is four times what is on the chart, while saying that you didn't claim that the number was wrong.
Maybe I just am not good enough at doublethink.
OK, that's enough of that.
the chart is wrong because it divided the nuber by 4, but the result is not wrong, it is... Nope. doesn't make sense.
maybe we should leave this one behind and talk about that impossible back radiation
