Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[jc456]

but you can't provide any evidence that happens. Why is that so difficult for someone who appears to have some smarts about you? There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere. ZERO. Otherwise it would have been posted by now.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens.

You don't believe all matter above 0K radiates in all directions all the time?

There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.

Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down. It's why it is a desert.

And, I already stated that all matter emits, other factors such as weight, pressure, volume density convection all come into play. I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.

And, I already stated that all matter emits

There you go, admitting back radiation.

I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

I have something better.

I already stated that all matter emits,

Your admission, no experiment needed.

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.
I never said anything about re-emit. where, show me. I said REFLECT and I didn't studder.

Do the suns rays reflect off of clouds? you seem to think the clouds don't reflect. hmmmmmmmmm now that is funny.

Yes, you said reflect.
How reflective is water vapor?

Do the suns rays reflect off of clouds?

Does IR act differently than sunlight?

you seem to think the clouds don't reflect

You seem to think the clouds don't absorb.

How reflective is water vapor?

It would be based on volume.

 

[jc456]

The problem with the atmosphere is that there are so many other variables to consider.

Even the example of the iron is problematic. If you put it in space, would the plate be warmer or cooler than on the surface? Conduction and convection are much more efficient at removing heat. Would loss of environmental input make up for the other pathways at equilibrium? I don't know for sure.

I agree that is the crux of the problem with global warming. To simply say that back radiation doesn't exist and therefore climate models are fraudulent, as SSDD does, is first of all a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermo. Secondly, as you say there are plenty of other modeling difficulties that would still remain if he did believe in back radiation.

The hot iron was a simple example of feeling radiation going downward, but I agree radiation alone is totally inadequate to cover the full dynamics of the iron, let alone the atmosphere.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens. Why is that so difficult for someone who appears to have some smarts about you? There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere. ZERO. Otherwise it would have been posted by now.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens.

You don't believe all matter above 0K radiates in all directions all the time?

There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.

Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?

BTW, since it gets chilly in the desert at night, why isn't the CO2 back radiation warming it up?

 

[jc456]

but you can't provide any evidence that happens. Why is that so difficult for someone who appears to have some smarts about you? There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere. ZERO. Otherwise it would have been posted by now.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens.

You don't believe all matter above 0K radiates in all directions all the time?

There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.

Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down. It's why it is a desert.

And, I already stated that all matter emits, other factors such as weight, pressure, volume density convection all come into play. I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.

And, I already stated that all matter emits

There you go, admitting back radiation.

I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

I have something better.

I already stated that all matter emits,

Your admission, no experiment needed.

There you go, admitting back radiation.
Nope, never said anything about back radiation. Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything. If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation. A hot iron is not back radiation, but emits all around it. I already mentioned all of that in other posts.

Nope, never said anything about back radiation.
Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything.

Matter radiates. If the atmosphere radiates, how is that not back radiation?

If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation.

When the objects around the amber radiate back to it, as you admitted, that's back radiation.

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back, if the amber emitting is still emitting?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The problem with the atmosphere is that there are so many other variables to consider.

Even the example of the iron is problematic. If you put it in space, would the plate be warmer or cooler than on the surface? Conduction and convection are much more efficient at removing heat. Would loss of environmental input make up for the other pathways at equilibrium? I don't know for sure.

I agree that is the crux of the problem with global warming. To simply say that back radiation doesn't exist and therefore climate models are fraudulent, as SSDD does, is first of all a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermo. Secondly, as you say there are plenty of other modeling difficulties that would still remain if he did believe in back radiation.

The hot iron was a simple example of feeling radiation going downward, but I agree radiation alone is totally inadequate to cover the full dynamics of the iron, let alone the atmosphere.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens. Why is that so difficult for someone who appears to have some smarts about you? There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere. ZERO. Otherwise it would have been posted by now.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens.

You don't believe all matter above 0K radiates in all directions all the time?

There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.

Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?

BTW, since it gets chilly in the desert at night, why isn't the CO2 back radiation warming it up?

BTW, since it gets chilly in the desert at night, why isn't the CO2 back radiation warming it up?

It is. But water vapor isn't. Water vapor is a much more important greenhouse gas than CO2.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

but you can't provide any evidence that happens.

You don't believe all matter above 0K radiates in all directions all the time?

There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.

Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down. It's why it is a desert.

And, I already stated that all matter emits, other factors such as weight, pressure, volume density convection all come into play. I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.

And, I already stated that all matter emits

There you go, admitting back radiation.

I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

I have something better.

I already stated that all matter emits,

Your admission, no experiment needed.

There you go, admitting back radiation.
Nope, never said anything about back radiation. Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything. If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation. A hot iron is not back radiation, but emits all around it. I already mentioned all of that in other posts.

Nope, never said anything about back radiation.
Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything.

Matter radiates. If the atmosphere radiates, how is that not back radiation?

If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation.

When the objects around the amber radiate back to it, as you admitted, that's back radiation.

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back, if the amber emitting is still emitting?

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back

What would stop it?

 

[jc456]

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down. It's why it is a desert.

And, I already stated that all matter emits, other factors such as weight, pressure, volume density convection all come into play. I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.

And, I already stated that all matter emits

There you go, admitting back radiation.

I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

I have something better.

I already stated that all matter emits,

Your admission, no experiment needed.

There you go, admitting back radiation.
Nope, never said anything about back radiation. Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything. If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation. A hot iron is not back radiation, but emits all around it. I already mentioned all of that in other posts.

Nope, never said anything about back radiation.
Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything.

Matter radiates. If the atmosphere radiates, how is that not back radiation?

If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation.

When the objects around the amber radiate back to it, as you admitted, that's back radiation.

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back, if the amber emitting is still emitting?

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back

What would stop it?

the amber emitting and any other matter emitting

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

but you can't provide any evidence that happens.

You don't believe all matter above 0K radiates in all directions all the time?

There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.

Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down. It's why it is a desert.

And, I already stated that all matter emits, other factors such as weight, pressure, volume density convection all come into play. I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.

And, I already stated that all matter emits

There you go, admitting back radiation.

I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

I have something better.

I already stated that all matter emits,

Your admission, no experiment needed.

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.
I never said anything about re-emit. where, show me. I said REFLECT and I didn't studder.

Do the suns rays reflect off of clouds? you seem to think the clouds don't reflect. hmmmmmmmmm now that is funny.

Yes, you said reflect.
How reflective is water vapor?

Do the suns rays reflect off of clouds?

Does IR act differently than sunlight?

you seem to think the clouds don't reflect

You seem to think the clouds don't absorb.

How reflective is water vapor?

It would be based on volume.

The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Low, thick clouds primarily reflect solar radiation and cool the surface of the Earth. High, thin clouds primarily transmit incoming solar radiation; at the same time, they trap some of the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by the Earth and radiate it back downward, thereby warming the surface of the Earth. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface depends on several factors, including the cloud's altitude, its size, and the make-up of the particles that form the cloud. The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates.

Clouds & Radiation Fact Sheet : Feature Articles

If you find anything about water vapor reflecting infrared, please share.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.

And, I already stated that all matter emits

There you go, admitting back radiation.

I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

I have something better.

I already stated that all matter emits,

Your admission, no experiment needed.

There you go, admitting back radiation.
Nope, never said anything about back radiation. Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything. If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation. A hot iron is not back radiation, but emits all around it. I already mentioned all of that in other posts.

Nope, never said anything about back radiation.
Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything.

Matter radiates. If the atmosphere radiates, how is that not back radiation?

If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation.

When the objects around the amber radiate back to it, as you admitted, that's back radiation.

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back, if the amber emitting is still emitting?

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back

What would stop it?

the amber emitting and any other matter emitting

Photons moved toward the hot amber are not stopped by photons moving away from the hot amber.

It's not like they're pushing on each other.

 

[jc456]

There you go, admitting back radiation.
Nope, never said anything about back radiation. Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything. If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation. A hot iron is not back radiation, but emits all around it. I already mentioned all of that in other posts.

Nope, never said anything about back radiation.
Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything.

Matter radiates. If the atmosphere radiates, how is that not back radiation?

If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation.

When the objects around the amber radiate back to it, as you admitted, that's back radiation.

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back, if the amber emitting is still emitting?

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back

What would stop it?

the amber emitting and any other matter emitting

Photons moved toward the hot amber are not stopped by photons moving away from the hot amber.

It's not like they're pushing on each other.

then why doesn't the hot amber get hotter?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope, never said anything about back radiation.
Just because matter emits does not qualify it as back anything.

Matter radiates. If the atmosphere radiates, how is that not back radiation?

If I have a hot amber it emits in every direction, it is not back radiation.

When the objects around the amber radiate back to it, as you admitted, that's back radiation.

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back, if the amber emitting is still emitting?

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back

What would stop it?

the amber emitting and any other matter emitting

Photons moved toward the hot amber are not stopped by photons moving away from the hot amber.

It's not like they're pushing on each other.

then why doesn't the hot amber get hotter?

Hotter than what?

 

[jc456]

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back, if the amber emitting is still emitting?

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back

What would stop it?

the amber emitting and any other matter emitting

Photons moved toward the hot amber are not stopped by photons moving away from the hot amber.

It's not like they're pushing on each other.

then why doesn't the hot amber get hotter?

Hotter than what?

than the temp it is while it is emitting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

how do you know the radiated wave makes it back

What would stop it?

the amber emitting and any other matter emitting

Photons moved toward the hot amber are not stopped by photons moving away from the hot amber.

It's not like they're pushing on each other.

then why doesn't the hot amber get hotter?

Hotter than what?

than the temp it is while it is emitting.

The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a black body in terms of its temperature. Specifically, the Stefan–Boltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant exitance or emissive power),

, is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body's thermodynamic temperature T:

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IanC]

WTF is hot amber? Isn't amber fossilized tree sap? Why is it hot?

jc - are you confusing two very different situations? One situation is two objects of differing temperatures coming to equilibrium with no outside power input. They will move in opposite directions until they are the same temp. The other situation is when one object is being warmed by an outside source and the surrounding environment will affect the the equilibrium temperature as the heat dissipates from the source. The objects will never be at the same temperature, instead there will be a gradient of cooling temps as you get further away from the heat source.

 

[Markle]

The people that want us all to live in the 18th century don't have much sanity or credibility. We'll see how my forecast turns out but I'd bet dollars to donuts that I'll be closer then the ice age freaks. We'd have to cool down globally nearly 1.6c for us to be in the climate little ice(18th century!), while we'd only need to stair step slightly about .1c compared to 2008-2012 temperatures for me to be right in the next 3-6 years under a neutral pattern.

Come on, 3-6 years, is relevant with regard to how long your pet dog lives. Regarding our climate, 3-6 years doesn't mean diddly squat.

 

[Old Rocks]

The topper of it all he is demanding proof LOL I have posted all the links I am going to post..those nut bags could be confronted with all the data in the world but it will not change their so called minds because using data and science is not how they arrived at their positions

The whole problem on this environment board is trying to discuss science with kids who don't understand science. They even deny proven scientific principles involving radiation physics, and the second law of thermodynamics.

I know right? I mean in my scientific world, one tests an hypothesis to prove a theory. So far the CO2 implications have never been validated. And that is basic science. Thanks.

You fucked up little idiot. Radiant heat doesn't go toward the ground? Where I work, we often have slabs of steel going down a roll line that are 20 ft long, 10 ft wide, and 4 inches thick. Coming out of the austentizing furnace, they are red hot. Now if you really believe that radiant heat won't go toward the ground there is about 30 inches clearance under the roll case. Just crawl under there and prove that no heat radiates toward the ground. I'll bring the barbeque sauce.

 

[Old Rocks]

.my position is that there is absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis....and I can't help but notice that you aren't even attempting to bring any here......

Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started.
In Support of the A in AGW

You keep harping on the same thing! You were given observed, measured quantified evidence that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.

apparently this SSDD believes he is an authority over Science...

he does? When has he ever stated such a thing? I think that is bull, and you can't prove it. Can you?

The science is clear and the SSDD nonsense dude thinks all he has to do is express his opinion and it overrules science ...like you

How can the science be clear when there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support claims regarding an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity such as the atmosphere?

How can you be so incredibly obtuse.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you bringing that crap to this thread too? You were already shown the evidence in the thread you started.
In Support of the A in AGW

You keep harping on the same thing! You were given observed, measured quantified evidence that there is back radiation from the greenhouse gasses hitting earth. The only point you had in rebuttal is to lie about the laws of physics. You were soundly rebutted against that too.

apparently this SSDD believes he is an authority over Science...

he does? When has he ever stated such a thing? I think that is bull, and you can't prove it. Can you?

The science is clear and the SSDD nonsense dude thinks all he has to do is express his opinion and it overrules science ...like you

How can the science be clear when there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support claims regarding an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity such as the atmosphere?

How can you be so incredibly obtuse.

He's had lots of practice.

 

[SSDD]

Try to keep up guy...I am not claiming any such thing...I am simply stating that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW...and every time you fail to provide any such evidence, you further prove me right...

Since Science is based on observation and the scientific world says AGW is real...then yes you are saying they are wrong and you have some sort of "better understanding of Climate" OK prove you have a greater understanding of climate using your data ..if any..

you are in effect saying that the conclusion of Climate Science is wrong because it is not based on observation...what did they base their AGW conclusions in ? Go ahead let it all hang out LOL

I am saying that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...you can't find it....none of the other warmers on this, or any other board can find it....where is it? You claim that it exists in the links you provide but are unable to cut and paste even one example of it...do you think the climate science community is keeping it secret?....

The conclusion of climate science is not based on observed, measured, quantified data even though the atmosphere is an observable, measurable, quantifiable entity.

 

[SSDD]

The problem with the atmosphere is that there are so many other variables to consider.

Even the example of the iron is problematic. If you put it in space, would the plate be warmer or cooler than on the surface? Conduction and convection are much more efficient at removing heat. Would loss of environmental input make up for the other pathways at equilibrium? I don't know for sure.

I agree that is the crux of the problem with global warming. To simply say that back radiation doesn't exist and therefore climate models are fraudulent, as SSDD does, is first of all a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermo. Secondly, as you say there are plenty of other modeling difficulties that would still remain if he did believe in back radiation.

The hot iron was a simple example of feeling radiation going downward, but I agree radiation alone is totally inadequate to cover the full dynamics of the iron, let alone the atmosphere.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens. Why is that so difficult for someone who appears to have some smarts about you? There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere. ZERO. Otherwise it would have been posted by now.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens.

You don't believe all matter above 0K radiates in all directions all the time?

There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.

Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down. It's why it is a desert.

And, I already stated that all matter emits, other factors such as weight, pressure, volume density convection all come into play. I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

I'm not sure you can say wrong. i can say they haven't proved it

They have proved it to the point no one writes peer reviewed papers saying AGW is not real...what you think is unimportant...

peer...or pal review is a joke...a proven joke...climate science papers get retracted at a rate unprecedented in any field of science.

 

[SSDD]

I agree that is the crux of the problem with global warming. To simply say that back radiation doesn't exist and therefore climate models are fraudulent, as SSDD does, is first of all a misunderstanding of the 2nd law of thermo. Secondly, as you say there are plenty of other modeling difficulties that would still remain if he did believe in back radiation.

The hot iron was a simple example of feeling radiation going downward, but I agree radiation alone is totally inadequate to cover the full dynamics of the iron, let alone the atmosphere.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens. Why is that so difficult for someone who appears to have some smarts about you? There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere. ZERO. Otherwise it would have been posted by now.

but you can't provide any evidence that happens.

You don't believe all matter above 0K radiates in all directions all the time?

There is zero evidence that a back radiation exists in the atmosphere.

Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down. It's why it is a desert.

And, I already stated that all matter emits, other factors such as weight, pressure, volume density convection all come into play. I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

because there is no moisture in the air to reflect the LWIR waves back down

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.

And, I already stated that all matter emits

There you go, admitting back radiation.

I tell you what, why don't you post the experiment that shows atmospheric CO2 radiating to the surface.

I have something better.

I already stated that all matter emits,

Your admission, no experiment needed.

Reflect? Don't you mean absorb and re-emit?
Sounds like you realize that clouds are part of back radiation.
I never said anything about re-emit. where, show me. I said REFLECT and I didn't studder.

Do the suns rays reflect off of clouds? you seem to think the clouds don't reflect. hmmmmmmmmm now that is funny.

I think he is unaware that water vapor is the only one of the so called greenhouse gasses that can absorb, and actually retain energy....it has to do with water being the only substance that we know of that can change phases in the open atmosphere....it is warmer in humid areas than it is in the desert due to the fact that humidity (water vapor} has actually stored energy and since there is little humidity in the desert, it gets cold very quickly at night...there being nothing to absorb and hold the energy still radiating from the earth.

There is little point in talking to that particular poster...he is the only person I have ever put on ignore since you bought internet time from AOL in time blocks...for a few bucks...talking to him is like talking to a child and if I am going to talk to children, I would just as soon talk to my grand kids...