IPCC temp projections

[IanC]

the pro-AGW crowd here keeps saying that their predictions are good, and if anything too conservative. does this include the IPCC temperature projections? they certainly seem exaggeratedly high in every edition of the IPCC so far. at least to me. can someone tell me how they consider these predictions are consistent with reality?

 

[PredFan]

Man caused global warming is a scam, always has been.

There are several telling signs:

1. Name change. When they used to call it "Global Warming" it appeared for a brief moment that the temperature was dropping. They changed it to "Climate Change" to cover them whether the temoperature went up or down.

2. The solution to "Climate Change" is Socialism. The rich countries giving money to the poor. That somehow fixes the climate.

3. "The science is finished, there is a concensus."

4. Demonization of any science that contradicts AGW.

5. Ostracising of any scientists who is labeled a "Denier".

6. Shennanigans among the movers and shakers of Climate Change Science.

 

[IanC]

Man caused global warming is a scam, always has been.

There are several telling signs:

1. Name change. When they used to call it "Global Warming" it appeared for a brief moment that the temperature was dropping. They changed it to "Climate Change" to cover them whether the temoperature went up or down.

2. The solution to "Climate Change" is Socialism. The rich countries giving money to the poor. That somehow fixes the climate.

3. "The science is finished, there is a concensus."

4. Demonization of any science that contradicts AGW.

5. Ostracising of any scientists who is labeled a "Denier".

6. Shennanigans among the movers and shakers of Climate Change Science.

while I find that I agree with many of those points I do not agree that both sides calling the other side names is going to fix anything in the near future.

 

[Dubya]

the pro-AGW crowd here keeps saying that their predictions are good, and if anything too conservative. does this include the IPCC temperature projections? they certainly seem exaggeratedly high in every edition of the IPCC so far. at least to me. can someone tell me how they consider these predictions are consistent with reality?

Stop the presses, a Denialista has figured out how to make a chart!

Where is the source for the math on the global temperatrure change and posting a chart by Denialistas isn't a source?

(46) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

(47) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

(48) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

This is NCDC data and it doesn't match your data on global temperature change from 1990.

Notice when 2012 will be included, 19 of the past 20 years are the warmest on record, but you Denialistas continue to make claims like there has been no global warming in the past 16 years.

Why wouldn't ice and snow around the world melt under those conditions?

 

[westwall]

"Alaska is going rogue on climate change.

Defiant as ever, the state that gave rise to Sarah Palin is bucking the mainstream yet again: While global temperatures surge hotter and the ice-cap crumbles, the nation's icebox is getting even icier.

That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.

Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that's so 20th Century.

In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Widespread warming

That's a "large value for a decade," the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in "The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska."

The cooling is widespread -- holding true for 19 of the 20 National Weather Service stations sprinkled from one corner of Alaska to the other, the paper notes. It's most significant in Western Alaska, where King Salmon on the Alaska Peninsula saw temperatures drop most sharply, a significant 4.5 degrees for the decade, the report says.



The new nippiness began with a vengeance in 2005, after more than a century that saw temperatures generally veer warmer in Alaska, the report says. With lots of ice to lose, the state had heated up about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, in line with rising global greenhouse gas emissions, note the Alaska Climate Center researchers, Gerd Wendler, L. Chen and Blake Moore. After a "sudden temperature increase" in Alaska starting in 1977, the warmest decade on record occurred in the 1980s, followed by another jump in the 1990s, they note. The third warmest decade was the 1920s, by the way."








While the globe warms and people swelter, Alaska is chilling | Alaska Dispatch

 

[IanC]

the pro-AGW crowd here keeps saying that their predictions are good, and if anything too conservative. does this include the IPCC temperature projections? they certainly seem exaggeratedly high in every edition of the IPCC so far. at least to me. can someone tell me how they consider these predictions are consistent with reality?

Stop the presses, a Denialista has figured out how to make a chart!

Where is the source for the math on the global temperatrure change and posting a chart by Denialistas isn't a source?

(46) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

(47) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

(48) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

This is NCDC data and it doesn't match your data on global temperature change from 1990.

Notice when 2012 will be included, 19 of the past 20 years are the warmest on record, but you Denialistas continue to make claims like there has been no global warming in the past 16 years.

Why wouldn't ice and snow around the world melt under those conditions?

are you saying that you dont believe that the base chart is from the second order draft of the IPCC's AR5? here is the unannotated graph. if you really want the original I can dig up the pdf of the report for you.

here is the caption that accompanied it -

Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.

did you really think it was just some graph conjured up out of thin air?


as to your second point.....the temperatures for the last 16 years have bounced around within a couple of tenths of a degree with no discernable rise. are you confusing 'warm' with 'warming'? they are different things, you know.

 

[IanC]

and this graph of the actual computer model projections-

the caption-

Figure 11.33: Synthesis of near-term projections of global mean surface air temperature. a) 4 Projections of global mean, annual mean surface air temperature (SAT) 1986–2050 (anomalies relative to 1986–2005) under all RCPs from CMIP5 models (grey and coloured lines, one ensemble member per model), with four observational estimates (HadCRUT3: Brohan et al., 2006; ERA-Interim: Simmons et al., 2010; GISTEMP: Hansen et al., 2010; NOAA: Smith et al., 2008) for the period 1986–2011 (black lines); b) as a) but showing the 5–95% range for RCP4.5 (light grey shades, with the multi-model median in white) and all RCPs (dark grey shades) of decadal mean CMIP5 projections using one ensemble member per model, and decadal mean observational estimates (black lines). The maximum and minimum values from CMIP5 are shown by the grey lines. An assessed likely range for the mean of the period 2016–2035 is indicated by the black solid bar. The ‘2°C above pre-industrial’ level is indicated with a thin black line, assuming a warming of global mean SAT prior to 1986–2005 of 0.6°C. c) A synthesis of ranges for the mean SAT for 2016–2035 using SRES CMIP3, RCPs CMIP5, observationally constrained projections (Stott et al., 2012; Rowlands et al., 2012; updated to remove simulations with large future volcanic eruptions), and an overall assessment. The box 1 and whiskers represent the likely (66%) and very likely (90%) ranges. The dots for the CMIP3 and CMIP5 estimates show the maximum and minimum values in the ensemble. The median (or maximum likelihood estimate for Rowlands et al., 2012) are indicated by a greyband.

if you look at the actual temps, they are almost clear of even the lowest projections already. and that is only from 2005!

 

[Dubya]

the pro-AGW crowd here keeps saying that their predictions are good, and if anything too conservative. does this include the IPCC temperature projections? they certainly seem exaggeratedly high in every edition of the IPCC so far. at least to me. can someone tell me how they consider these predictions are consistent with reality?

Stop the presses, a Denialista has figured out how to make a chart!

Where is the source for the math on the global temperatrure change and posting a chart by Denialistas isn't a source?

(46) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

(47) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

(48) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

This is NCDC data and it doesn't match your data on global temperature change from 1990.

Notice when 2012 will be included, 19 of the past 20 years are the warmest on record, but you Denialistas continue to make claims like there has been no global warming in the past 16 years.

Why wouldn't ice and snow around the world melt under those conditions?

are you saying that you dont believe that the base chart is from the second order draft of the IPCC's AR5? here is the unannotated graph. if you really want the original I can dig up the pdf of the report for you.

here is the caption that accompanied it -

Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.

did you really think it was just some graph conjured up out of thin air?


as to your second point.....the temperatures for the last 16 years have bounced around within a couple of tenths of a degree with no discernable rise. are you confusing 'warm' with 'warming'? they are different things, you know.

I'm saying I can do second grade arithmetic, can you?

Your global temperature data doesn't match the data at the NCDC, so where else in the world or space can you get better global temperature data?

 

[IanC]

Stop the presses, a Denialista has figured out how to make a chart!

Where is the source for the math on the global temperatrure change and posting a chart by Denialistas isn't a source?

(46) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

(47) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

(48) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

This is NCDC data and it doesn't match your data on global temperature change from 1990.

Notice when 2012 will be included, 19 of the past 20 years are the warmest on record, but you Denialistas continue to make claims like there has been no global warming in the past 16 years.

Why wouldn't ice and snow around the world melt under those conditions?

are you saying that you dont believe that the base chart is from the second order draft of the IPCC's AR5? here is the unannotated graph. if you really want the original I can dig up the pdf of the report for you.

here is the caption that accompanied it -

Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at NCDC: Global Surface Temperature Anomalies and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown.

did you really think it was just some graph conjured up out of thin air?


as to your second point.....the temperatures for the last 16 years have bounced around within a couple of tenths of a degree with no discernable rise. are you confusing 'warm' with 'warming'? they are different things, you know.

I'm saying I can do second grade arithmetic, can you?

Your global temperature data doesn't match the data at the NCDC, so where else in the world or space can you get better global temperature data?

You did read the caption, right?

I think the IPCC is wrong about a lot of things but I think they probably got their global temps right. what offset is your dataset using, and which comparison period?

 

[tjvh]

Man caused global warming is a scam, always has been.

There are several telling signs:

1. Name change. When they used to call it "Global Warming" it appeared for a brief moment that the temperature was dropping. They changed it to "Climate Change" to cover them whether the temoperature went up or down.

2. The solution to "Climate Change" is Socialism. The rich countries giving money to the poor. That somehow fixes the climate.

3. "The science is finished, there is a concensus."

4. Demonization of any science that contradicts AGW.

5. Ostracising of any scientists who is labeled a "Denier".

6. Shennanigans among the movers and shakers of Climate Change Science.

while I find that I agree with many of those points I do not agree that both sides calling the other side names is going to fix anything in the near future.

Nor is throwing Taxpayer money at it... A very expensive hoax.

 

[Dubya]

are you saying that you dont believe that the base chart is from the second order draft of the IPCC's AR5? here is the unannotated graph. if you really want the original I can dig up the pdf of the report for you.

here is the caption that accompanied it -



did you really think it was just some graph conjured up out of thin air?


as to your second point.....the temperatures for the last 16 years have bounced around within a couple of tenths of a degree with no discernable rise. are you confusing 'warm' with 'warming'? they are different things, you know.

I'm saying I can do second grade arithmetic, can you?

Your global temperature data doesn't match the data at the NCDC, so where else in the world or space can you get better global temperature data?

You did read the caption, right?

I think the IPCC is wrong about a lot of things but I think they probably got their global temps right. what offset is your dataset using, and which comparison period?

Did the IPCC make that chart and those aren't IPCC global temperatures. The IPCC only reports what others do and does no research on it's own. The data doesn't match NCDC data, which is sourced. There is also the obvious question of why someone would logically pick one year as a base period, because any year picked would be cherry picking. That's why they use a base period of 30 years, to keep from cherry picking.

 

[Old Rocks]

So the present level of the Mississippi is a hoax? The rapid melt of the Arctic Ice Cap? The worldwide regression of the alpine glaciers? The melting on Greenland?

And we are already throwing taxpayer money at the consequences of climate change. The work the engineers are doing to clear a channel in the Mississippis is being paid for by taxpayers. The cost of the huge forest fires in the West is being paid for by taxpayers. Most of the cost of the flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri was paid for by taxpayers.

As the extreme weather disasters increase in number and intensity, so will the cost to us as individuals, and to the government in taxpayer dollars.

 

[SSDD]

So the present level of the Mississippi is a hoax? The rapid melt of the Arctic Ice Cap? The worldwide regression of the alpine glaciers? The melting on Greenland?

And we are already throwing taxpayer money at the consequences of climate change. The work the engineers are doing to clear a channel in the Mississippis is being paid for by taxpayers. The cost of the huge forest fires in the West is being paid for by taxpayers. Most of the cost of the flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri was paid for by taxpayers.

As the extreme weather disasters increase in number and intensity, so will the cost to us as individuals, and to the government in taxpayer dollars.

And still not a shred of proof exists that CO2 has anything to do with any of the things you list.

 

[westwall]

So the present level of the Mississippi is a hoax? The rapid melt of the Arctic Ice Cap? The worldwide regression of the alpine glaciers? The melting on Greenland?

And we are already throwing taxpayer money at the consequences of climate change. The work the engineers are doing to clear a channel in the Mississippis is being paid for by taxpayers. The cost of the huge forest fires in the West is being paid for by taxpayers. Most of the cost of the flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri was paid for by taxpayers.

As the extreme weather disasters increase in number and intensity, so will the cost to us as individuals, and to the government in taxpayer dollars.

I think the modern record low level was July 1988 which was lower than today and the CO2 level was below your magic level by quite a bit.

But that would, once again, be a fact and as we all know you guys don't do facts. And what rapid melt of the Arctic ice cap? This is the beginning of winter and it's almost to the norm for the year.

 

[Dubya]

So the present level of the Mississippi is a hoax? The rapid melt of the Arctic Ice Cap? The worldwide regression of the alpine glaciers? The melting on Greenland?

And we are already throwing taxpayer money at the consequences of climate change. The work the engineers are doing to clear a channel in the Mississippis is being paid for by taxpayers. The cost of the huge forest fires in the West is being paid for by taxpayers. Most of the cost of the flooding on the Mississippi and Missouri was paid for by taxpayers.

As the extreme weather disasters increase in number and intensity, so will the cost to us as individuals, and to the government in taxpayer dollars.

And still not a shred of proof exists that CO2 has anything to do with any of the things you list.

If you knew anything about gases, you would know some gases absorb infrared radiation and others don't. They often use the term opaque and transparent. Sunlight hitting the Earth produces heat and gives off infrared radiation. If the atmosphere doesn't have a greenhouse gas, that IR radiation just goes right out into space, but if the atmosphere has greenhouse gases, it back radiates the energy. The amount of that back radiation is more than the amount of radiation that reaches the surface from the sun, because it's recycled heat energy. The Earth's energy budget charts have been around longer than global warming concerns.

You know nothings aren't challenging AGW with your ignorance and are challenging basic science. The same energy budget charts were in textbooks before we were born and anyone cared about global warming.

Even liars like Monckton admit increasing greenhouse gases has to cause some warming, but he's smart enough to fudge the calculations to make the greenhouse effect look insignificant. The fact is the amount of heat absorbed by a gas can be individually tested in a lab, quite easily, simply by shining light through the gas.

You keep going on: you can't prove 1 + 1 = 2, because I don't want to learn arithmetic.

As I've pointed out, there are many things that can cause radiative forcing, but it's a finite amount of things. The direction of the radiative forcing can be positive or negative and both directions have feedbacks to amplify that forcing.

 

[SSDD]

If you knew anything about gases, you would know some gases absorb infrared radiation and others don't. They often use the term opaque and transparent. Sunlight hitting the Earth produces heat and gives off infrared radiation. If the atmosphere doesn't have a greenhouse gas, that IR radiation just goes right out into space, but if the atmosphere has greenhouse gases, it back radiates the energy. The amount of that back radiation is more than the amount of radiation that reaches the surface from the sun, because it's recycled heat energy. The Earth's energy budget charts have been around longer than global warming concerns.

It has just become very clear that it is you who doesn't know anything about gasses. Your whole thesis is disproven by Jupiter and Saturn...Those two planets have very high temperatures deep within their atmospheres and yet, likely don't have a wisp of so called greehouse gas between them.

It is funny that you post that cartoon as some sort of proof for anything. Even warmers have been trying to distance themselves from it for some time now. Do you really believe that the surface of the earth receives and absorbes more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it receives and absorbes from its primary energy source? Do you really believe that?

You know nothings aren't challenging AGW with your ignorance and are challenging basic science. The same energy budget charts were in textbooks before we were born and anyone cared about global warming.

I am sure that you are unaware that new hypoteses are being presented and at least two of them, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis actually predict accurate temperatures when applied to other planets in the solar system and have been verified via actual empirical evidence in the form of more than 800 experiments. The greenhouse hypothesis is in the midst of its death throes. Sorry to break the news to you.

Even liars like Monckton admit increasing greenhouse gases has to cause some warming, but he's smart enough to fudge the calculations to make the greenhouse effect look insignificant. The fact is the amount of heat absorbed by a gas can be individually tested in a lab, quite easily, simply by shining light through the gas.

Mockton is a luke warmer. He, and those like him believe in the magic but just believe that the magic is weaker than full blown warmist wackos. The fact is that there is no greenhouse effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is much greater than the greenhouse effect, but it isn't dependent on the composition of the atmosphere to any degree greater than any particular gasses contribution to the total volume of that atmosphere.

You keep going on: you can't prove 1 + 1 = 2, because I don't want to learn arithmetic.

This new hypothesis has been proven in via more than 800 experiments while your hypothesis has yet to have even the smallest bit of empirical evidence attatched to it.

As I've pointed out, there are many things that can cause radiative forcing, but it's a finite amount of things. The direction of the radiative forcing can be positive or negative and both directions have feedbacks to amplify that forcing.

You have pointed it out, but you can't begin to prove it. Are you even aware that the greenhouse effect has never been measured or even mathematically modeled?

 

[Dubya]

If you knew anything about gases, you would know some gases absorb infrared radiation and others don't. They often use the term opaque and transparent. Sunlight hitting the Earth produces heat and gives off infrared radiation. If the atmosphere doesn't have a greenhouse gas, that IR radiation just goes right out into space, but if the atmosphere has greenhouse gases, it back radiates the energy. The amount of that back radiation is more than the amount of radiation that reaches the surface from the sun, because it's recycled heat energy. The Earth's energy budget charts have been around longer than global warming concerns.

It has just become very clear that it is you who doesn't know anything about gasses. Your whole thesis is disproven by Jupiter and Saturn...Those two planets have very high temperatures deep within their atmospheres and yet, likely don't have a wisp of so called greehouse gas between them.

It is funny that you post that cartoon as some sort of proof for anything. Even warmers have been trying to distance themselves from it for some time now. Do you really believe that the surface of the earth receives and absorbes more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it receives and absorbes from its primary energy source? Do you really believe that?

You know nothings aren't challenging AGW with your ignorance and are challenging basic science. The same energy budget charts were in textbooks before we were born and anyone cared about global warming.

I am sure that you are unaware that new hypoteses are being presented and at least two of them, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis actually predict accurate temperatures when applied to other planets in the solar system and have been verified via actual empirical evidence in the form of more than 800 experiments. The greenhouse hypothesis is in the midst of its death throes. Sorry to break the news to you.



Mockton is a luke warmer. He, and those like him believe in the magic but just believe that the magic is weaker than full blown warmist wackos. The fact is that there is no greenhouse effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is much greater than the greenhouse effect, but it isn't dependent on the composition of the atmosphere to any degree greater than any particular gasses contribution to the total volume of that atmosphere.

You keep going on: you can't prove 1 + 1 = 2, because I don't want to learn arithmetic.

This new hypothesis has been proven in via more than 800 experiments while your hypothesis has yet to have even the smallest bit of empirical evidence attatched to it.

As I've pointed out, there are many things that can cause radiative forcing, but it's a finite amount of things. The direction of the radiative forcing can be positive or negative and both directions have feedbacks to amplify that forcing.

You have pointed it out, but you can't begin to prove it. Are you even aware that the greenhouse effect has never been measured or even mathematically modeled?

Find an old textbook before a fool like you was born and discover they used the same charts for the Earth's energy budget that you are too dumb to understand!

The rest of what you have to say isn't even worth discussing. If you can't understand the most basic things and refuse to learn, you aren't worth wasting time with. You're just a moron who can't even understand what the greenhouse effect is. The knowledge about it predates everyone who lives on Earth, fool!

 

[SSDD]

Find an old textbook before a fool like you was born and discover they used the same charts for the Earth's energy budget that you are too dumb to understand!

Answer the question buckwheet....do you believe the surface of the earth recieves, and absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun. Your cartoon says it does....do you believe it?

The rest of what you have to say isn't even worth discussing. If you can't understand the most basic things and refuse to learn, you aren't worth wasting time with. You're just a moron who can't even understand what the greenhouse effect is. The knowledge about it predates everyone who lives on Earth, fool!

Answer the question. IIt is obcious that you can't actually talk about the topic in your own words. You are a cut and paste drone like thunder who doesn't understand any of what you post.

And I understand what the greenhouse effect is claimed to be and also understand that it doesn't exist.

 

[Dubya]

Find an old textbook before a fool like you was born and discover they used the same charts for the Earth's energy budget that you are too dumb to understand!

Answer the question buckwheet....do you believe the surface of the earth recieves, and absorbs more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere as it does from the sun. Your cartoon says it does....do you believe it?

The rest of what you have to say isn't even worth discussing. If you can't understand the most basic things and refuse to learn, you aren't worth wasting time with. You're just a moron who can't even understand what the greenhouse effect is. The knowledge about it predates everyone who lives on Earth, fool!

Answer the question. IIt is obcious that you can't actually talk about the topic in your own words. You are a cut and paste drone like thunder who doesn't understand any of what you post.

And I understand what the greenhouse effect is claimed to be and also understand that it doesn't exist.

It can be proven with Physics, because if it didn't, the average global temperature would be less than -30 degree C. It's also been measured on other planets, because planets without greenhouse gases in their atmosphere don't get back radiation. Why is the global temperature on Venus more than on Mercury? If the Earth had a atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen, it wouldn't get back radiation, because nitrogen and oxygen can't absorb infrared radiation and radiate it back.

Didn't you notice the planet was radiating about twice as much energy as it received, too?

This science predates anyone living on Earth and only idiots doubt it.

You aren't taking on AGW, you are taking on very basic science that's been accepted for well over a hundred years. That's why you are called flat earthers.

 

[westwall]

If you knew anything about gases, you would know some gases absorb infrared radiation and others don't. They often use the term opaque and transparent. Sunlight hitting the Earth produces heat and gives off infrared radiation. If the atmosphere doesn't have a greenhouse gas, that IR radiation just goes right out into space, but if the atmosphere has greenhouse gases, it back radiates the energy. The amount of that back radiation is more than the amount of radiation that reaches the surface from the sun, because it's recycled heat energy. The Earth's energy budget charts have been around longer than global warming concerns.

It has just become very clear that it is you who doesn't know anything about gasses. Your whole thesis is disproven by Jupiter and Saturn...Those two planets have very high temperatures deep within their atmospheres and yet, likely don't have a wisp of so called greehouse gas between them.

It is funny that you post that cartoon as some sort of proof for anything. Even warmers have been trying to distance themselves from it for some time now. Do you really believe that the surface of the earth receives and absorbes more than twice as much energy from the atmosphere than it receives and absorbes from its primary energy source? Do you really believe that?



I am sure that you are unaware that new hypoteses are being presented and at least two of them, unlike the greenhouse hypothesis actually predict accurate temperatures when applied to other planets in the solar system and have been verified via actual empirical evidence in the form of more than 800 experiments. The greenhouse hypothesis is in the midst of its death throes. Sorry to break the news to you.



Mockton is a luke warmer. He, and those like him believe in the magic but just believe that the magic is weaker than full blown warmist wackos. The fact is that there is no greenhouse effect. There is an atmospheric thermal effect which is much greater than the greenhouse effect, but it isn't dependent on the composition of the atmosphere to any degree greater than any particular gasses contribution to the total volume of that atmosphere.



This new hypothesis has been proven in via more than 800 experiments while your hypothesis has yet to have even the smallest bit of empirical evidence attatched to it.

As I've pointed out, there are many things that can cause radiative forcing, but it's a finite amount of things. The direction of the radiative forcing can be positive or negative and both directions have feedbacks to amplify that forcing.

You have pointed it out, but you can't begin to prove it. Are you even aware that the greenhouse effect has never been measured or even mathematically modeled?

Find an old textbook before a fool like you was born and discover they used the same charts for the Earth's energy budget that you are too dumb to understand!

The rest of what you have to say isn't even worth discussing. If you can't understand the most basic things and refuse to learn, you aren't worth wasting time with. You're just a moron who can't even understand what the greenhouse effect is. The knowledge about it predates everyone who lives on Earth, fool!

Yeah, how about that 2nd law of Thermodynamics there, perpetual motion machine man.