Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[SSDD]

There are 3 main points to AGW.

The first is not really necessary except to alarm people. Has the Earth warmed? Definitely yes since the Little Ice Age. The amount is still contentious. Funny how the records supported a coming ice age in the seventies but since then have been manipulated into supporting GW. Did the scientists 'push' the numbers around to advance the calamity-of-the-day back then? Are they doing the same but in a different direction now? I think there is always pressure to support the current consensus.

More importantly, is the CO2 level rising? Does anyone doubt this? Does anyone doubt that mankind's use of fossil fuels has contributed?

The first two points are overwhelmingly supported in direction, if not necessarily in quantity, by evidence. Which I am not going to present BTW.

No one is arguing those points....but those points, don't even amount to even a small amount of evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

The third and most important point is 'does CO2 have a warming influence?' Water in its various forms has a vast influence but can we separate out CO2's effect? It's ability to absorb certain bands of IR is beyond doubt as spectography proves. The surface radiates part of its power in those bands as is proven by Planck curves for temperature. Therefore we know CO2 must have an effect because those bands do not radiate out to space at the speed of light. QED. CO2 has an effect on the energy level of the atmosphere and hence the temperature. Land surface temperature is measured at ~ one metre so it is really the atmosphere, and so 30% of the globe is necessarily affected.

And there is where assumption takes over for observed, measured, quantified evidence...you are talking about phenomena which should be observable, measurable, and quantifiable...but not the first bit of data exists.. Absorption and emission do not equal warming...there is absolutely no evidence proving that assumption...there, is in fact, no evidence of the observed, measured, quantified variety proving any of the assumptions upon which the A in AGW is based.

I can't see how anyone can dispute this mechanism, and legitimate skeptics don't. My disagreement is with the quantities and conclusions that consensus climate science reports as a certainty.

It is a physical phenomenon that supposedly causes a physical change in the temperature of the atmosphere at ambient temperature, and yet, it can not be measured at ambient temperature...it is an artifact of a mathematical model...unobserved, unmeasured, unquantified...and that is the bottom line.

 

[Crick]

Ian (and Sid), do you actually think you've thought of something that thousands of PhD scientists have not? Or are we back to the conspiracy? Seems to me, Ian, that those are your ONLY two choices with that post.

 

[SSDD]

So where is the observed, measured, quantified data that supports the hypothesis? You don't seem to be able to find it...I believe that you believe it exists, but I know that you can't post any of it...why?...because in spite of what you believe...it doesn't exist.

SSoooooDDuuuuumb's usual anti-science, head-up-ass, retarded denial of reality.

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.

In case you missed it, nitwit....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015

Ad what do you want to be that the measurements were made with instruments cooled to a temperature lower than that of the atmosphere....same old game thunder...and nothing unsurprising....increase the amount of CO2...and of course there is more CO2 to radiate to the cooled instrument...of course it still can't be measured at ambient temperature although the change in the atmospheric temperature is supposed to happen at the ambient temperature....more bait and switch and no evidence supporting the A in AGW...

What they showed is that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to a cooler instrument and if you have more CO2 then you can get marginally more energy transferring to the cooler instrument....how do you suppose that supports the A in AGW?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You can't find any observed, measured, quantified data..none of your buds can find any observed, measured, quantified data...climate science isn't providing any observed, measured, quantified data...

I already agreed with you guys and your version of AGW...all of a sudden Science and Scientific agencies abandoned the Scientific method and came up, absent ANY DATA, with the AGW reality...no measurement no nothing...NOAA NASA the UK and Japanese Met they all said "screw data" lets just believe in AGW and that is how it is what more do you want LOL

I know its weird but that is what happened ...you all are Geniuses

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Ian (and Sid), do you actually think you've thought of something that thousands of PhD scientists have not? Or are we back to the conspiracy? Seems to me, Ian, that those are your ONLY two choices with that post.

SSDD says none of those scientific agencies use data ...they just decided one day at a meeting on the AGW position
...SSDD ,clearly an Einstein, discovered this anomaly...

Rising Sea Levels Swallow 5 Pacific Islands

 

[jc456]

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

Your denier cult myths are insane nonsense.

In case you missed it, nitwit....

First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface
Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations
Berkeley Lab
Dan Krotz
FEBRUARY 25, 2015

Yep CO2 is rising, and temperatures are not. Hmmm now you have a dilemma

Nope! You have a dilemma. You're bonkers!

2015 shatters record for warmest year globally by largest margin yet
AccuWeather
By Katy Galimberti, AccuWeather.com Staff Writer
January 25, 2016
Not to be upstaged by the previous year, 2015 was globally the warmest year since records began in 1880, according to NASA and NOAA.

The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62 F (0.90 C) above the 20th century average, NOAA said. Surpassing 2014's record by 0.29 F (0.16 C), this is the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken.

Fifteen of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001.

*****

NOAA - State of the Climate
Global Analysis - March 2016
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for March 2016 was the highest for this month in the 1880–2016 record, at 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average of 12.7°C (54.9°F). This surpassed the previous record set in 2015 by 0.32°C / (0.58°F), and marks the highest monthly temperature departure among all 1,635 months on record, surpassing the previous all-time record set just last month by 0.01°C (0.02°F). Overall, the nine highest monthly temperature departures in the record have all occurred in the past nine months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month a monthly global temperature record has been broken, the longest such streak in NOAA's 137 years of record keeping.

The first three months of 2016 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, at 1.15°C (2.07°F) above the 20th century average of 12.3°C (54.1°F), surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.28°C (0.50°F) and surpassing January-March 1998, the last time during this period a similar strength El Niño occurred, by 0.45°C (0.81°F). January–March 2016 also marks the highest deaprture from average for any three-month period on record. This record has been broken for seven consecutive months, since the July–September 2015 period.

The average global sea surface temperature for the year-to-date was the highest for January–March in the 137-year period of record, at 0.82°C (1.48°F) above average, surpassing the previous records set in 2010 and 2015 by 0.21°C (0.38°F) and surpassing January–March 1998 by 0.27°C (0.49°F). The average land surface temperature was also record high, at 2.05°C (3.69°F) above average, surpassing the previous record of 2015 by 0.47°C (0.85°F) and surpassing January-March 1998 by 0.95°C (1.71°F).

Record warmth was observed in various areas around the globe. An almost continuous swath of this warmth was observed from southern Africa to the North Indian Ocean to parts of southeastern Asia stretching into northern Australia. Additionally, parts of every inhabited continent and every major ocean basin had some regions with record warmth for the year-to-date.

*****

(Graph: Japan Meteorological Agency)

Sure, we all know the data was manipulated. Yeppers, we know that , oh I mean corrected, LOL

I guess you denier cult lunatics have no idea how utterly crazy you sound when you try to explain away all of the scientific evidence and testimony supporting the reality of human caused, CO2 driven global warming by resorting to your completely crackpot and insane conspiracy theory about all of the world's scientists being in a huge plot to fake the data.

Everybody else sees your utter insanity quite clearly though, and so we can also see how brainwashed and bamboozled you ignorant, moronic rightwingnuts really are.

so any actual scientist would test the CO2 hypothesis. So, I'm happy to give up the fight once that experiment is produced that can show the magic of the CO2. Just one fking experiment. All these scientific organizations you all keep referring to, and yet not a fken one of em can you find that have that elusive experiment. Hmmmmm, yeah, I'm calling em liars. you really think it matters what you think of that? Really? Dude I don't know you from jack and I have a belief system that is requiring the experiment. Just one little one that shows when you put CO2 in a environment and hit with LWIR waves that it back scatters hotter than what was absorbed. Just one. I'm more worried about you and your belief system. Someone says something therefore it is cause they have PHD after their name. hahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[jon_berzerk]

A shit load of appeals to authority and no science to back up any claim your making.. The run in circles never stops. Claim you have consensus, claim you have science, claim your political groups agenda statements are fact based on failed modeling..

But not once is real, observed, quantifiable data found or used..

Your chicken little cries of doom and gloom are hype and pure grade - A bull shit.. Designed so the masses will give up their freedoms, their ability to feed themselves, and make all of us dependent on your communist, top down, control government..

Your problem now is more and more people are waking up to the fact you have no facts and its all bull shit lies and deceptions.. And that scares the hell out of you.. as it should!

you dont need any of that when it is faith based

 

[Wuwei]

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

You keep harping on the same thing. You were given observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data that showed downward radiation from all the green house gasses including CO2. That is the basis for keeping the earth from losing heat. Why can't you understand that. It's so simple.

 

[jc456]

There are 3 main points to AGW.

The first is not really necessary except to alarm people. Has the Earth warmed? Definitely yes since the Little Ice Age. The amount is still contentious. Funny how the records supported a coming ice age in the seventies but since then have been manipulated into supporting GW. Did the scientists 'push' the numbers around to advance the calamity-of-the-day back then? Are they doing the same but in a different direction now? I think there is always pressure to support the current consensus.

More importantly, is the CO2 level rising? Does anyone doubt this? Does anyone doubt that mankind's use of fossil fuels has contributed?

The first two points are overwhelmingly supported in direction, if not necessarily in quantity, by evidence. Which I am not going to present BTW.

The third and most important point is 'does CO2 have a warming influence?' Water in its various forms has a vast influence but can we separate out CO2's effect? It's ability to absorb certain bands of IR is beyond doubt as spectography proves. The surface radiates part of its power in those bands as is proven by Planck curves for temperature. Therefore we know CO2 must have an effect because those bands do not radiate out to space at the speed of light. QED. CO2 has an effect on the energy level of the atmosphere and hence the temperature. Land surface temperature is measured at ~ one metre so it is really the atmosphere, and so 30% of the globe is necessarily affected.

I can't see how anyone can dispute this mechanism, and legitimate skeptics don't. My disagreement is with the quantities and conclusions that consensus climate science reports as a certainty.

I think water is a vastly more important GHG mainly because it both heats and cools depending on local conditions. Oceans have an upper temperature limit of ~ 30C, arid land can get 15C warmer. Evaporation and especially thunderclouds remove surface heat at a rate that dwarfs simple radiation. And it doesn't even have to be more evaporation/clouds. Just a simple adjustment of when they form is enough to change the temperature by changing the albedo.

I just hope that people on this board don't think SSDD, jc or even billybob are typical of skeptical thinking as it pertains to climate science.

Dude, I'm disappointed in you, basic science says there must be evidence to prove a hypothetical position. There isn't any. And yet you believe. Wow

Be more specific in your complaint. Where do you feel my logic failed? I gave you general principles rather than precise figures so that we must come to general agreement or disagreement before we quibble over admittedly important details.

Do you disagree that heat rising is a gravity based phenomena? I have no doubt that googling candle in an elevator would give you an enlightening experience. Spectography and the absorption/emission of gases has been studied for centuries. Surely you don't think the basis for many of our medical instruments is a hoax?

What exactly do you find fault with? Perhaps I can send you on the right path to find the understanding and evidence you seek. Although I doubt it. You have made progress before, only to backslide into superstition.

The fact that you believe in this CO2 magic without any evidence, only some mathematical model. That isn't science. IT IS NOT SCIENCE. Science tests, period to validate the model. I hope people on this board understand that there is no evidence to support the magic. Zero. If I missed it, I'm confident Frank or SSDD would have seen it. Even Billy, yet, here we are today, this morning discussing that the magic has never been validated. BTW studied is not observed. Another fallacy that many in here seem to attach to. Cause someone studied it, it must be so. Wow. I live in a real world and I know what I observe.

As for the heat transfer concerning gravity. Why does a hot air balloon fly when there is gravity? yep fill a balloon with heat and up she goes. Since I'm not a science major I don't know all of the physics to it, but it would tell me that hot air is lighter than cold air. Collect it and it will make an object float even while there is gravity. Pressure and volume also comes into play.

You'll probably tell me that cold air displaces the hot air. And yet if you have gravity why does that happen? Again pressure and weight, hot is lighter than cold. Or do you disagree with that?

Dude, I'm not sure how you are a skeptic when you champion the CO2 nonsense. That's my point. You seem to be at conflict with your ownself.

 

[SSDD]

Ian (and Sid), do you actually think you've thought of something that thousands of PhD scientists have not? Or are we back to the conspiracy? Seems to me, Ian, that those are your ONLY two choices with that post.

SSDD says none of those scientific agencies use data ...they just decided one day at a meeting on the AGW position
...SSDD ,clearly an Einstein, discovered this anomaly...

Rising Sea Levels Swallow 5 Pacific Islands

Never fails...when you guys see that you are losing, you start lying...I never said that they had no data...I said that they had none of a certain kind of data...that being, observed, measured, quantified data...they have plenty of data...most of it from models, or based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models, but they call it data..and they have data showing that if you cool an instrument to temperatures cooler than the atmosphere, energy will move from the atmosphere to the instrument...none of which supports the A in AGW...

 

[SSDD]

The reality, thunder, is that there is no observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW....the warmer's inability to provide any at all just keeps proving me right...so you had to come in and show that you also can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...ok...lets see you prove me right.

You keep harping on the same thing. You were given observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data that showed downward radiation from all the green house gasses including CO2. That is the basis for keeping the earth from losing heat. Why can't you understand that. It's so simple.

No wuwei...I was shown data gathered with a cooled instrument.....what was shown that is if you cool an instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...I am not sure how you think that supports the A in AGW...

 

[Wuwei]

No wuwei...I was shown data gathered with a cooled instrument.....what was shown that is if you cool an instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...I am not sure how you think that supports the A in AGW...

So what if the instrument is cooled. That makes the data more trustworthy - reduces noise and cuts the self radiation of the housing to the detector. The radiation was still downward and matched the spectra of the green house gasses.

 

[jc456]

No wuwei...I was shown data gathered with a cooled instrument.....what was shown that is if you cool an instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...I am not sure how you think that supports the A in AGW...

So what if the instrument is cooled. The makes the data more trustworthy - reduces noise and cuts the self radiation of the housing to the detector. The radiation was still downward and matched the spectra of the green house gasses.

you have no idea what is being seen on that scope. You assume it's some sort of radiation only. nothing more. And the fact that it's cooled is the only way to draw the wave to the meter. doesn't mean it is there all the time. Again, something you can't prove.

 

[SSDD]

No wuwei...I was shown data gathered with a cooled instrument.....what was shown that is if you cool an instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...I am not sure how you think that supports the A in AGW...

So what if the instrument is cooled. That makes the data more trustworthy - reduces noise and cuts the self radiation of the housing to the detector. The radiation was still downward and matched the spectra of the green house gasses.

What do you mean so what if the instrument is cooled?...that is a critical bit of information....if you are measuring energy moving from a warmer object (the atmosphere) to a cooler object (the instrument) you are not measuring back radiation or back scatter or back anything...you are simply measuring energy moving from a warm object to a cool object...nothing special there....and who says that direction is important...it isn't...hold a hot iron over your hand...the radiation is warming your hand, but it isn't back radiation...it is just radiation moving from a hot object to a cooler object....it is called fooling yourself with instrumentation....and by the way...did you notice that the area that they measured in alaska actually cooled several degrees during the time of the "observation"...does that mean that CO2 forces cooling?

 

[SSDD]

No wuwei...I was shown data gathered with a cooled instrument.....what was shown that is if you cool an instrument to a temperature lower than the atmosphere, that energy will move from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...I am not sure how you think that supports the A in AGW...

So what if the instrument is cooled. The makes the data more trustworthy - reduces noise and cuts the self radiation of the housing to the detector. The radiation was still downward and matched the spectra of the green house gasses.

you have no idea what is being seen on that scope. You assume it's some sort of radiation only. nothing more. And the fact that it's cooled is the only way to draw the wave to the meter. doesn't mean it is there all the time. Again, something you can't prove.

It is a bit humorous...they think energy moving from a warm object to a cool object is back radiation...and wuewi apparently believes that because it is moving from a higher altitude down to the cooled instrument on the ground that makes it back radiation...Earlier he said to you "Yes you did say that. You denied back radiation. The heat from the bottom of the iron is radiation downward. QED. You were clamoring about heat only rising. You are referring to conduction, not radiation."

The heat is simply moving from the warm iron to your warmer hand...direction makes no difference...backradiation would be energy from your cool hand moving to the hot iron....again...simply not happening...of course if you could theoretically put an instrument on the iron that is kept cooler than your hand I suppose you could measure energy moving from your warmer hand to the cooler instrument..

 

[Wuwei]

What do you mean so what if the instrument is cooled?...that is a critical bit of information....if you are measuring energy moving from a warmer object (the atmosphere) to a cooler object (the instrument) you are not measuring back radiation or back scatter or back anything...you are simply measuring energy moving from a warm object to a cool object.

Yes it is a bit of critical info. It makes the detector reading more trustworthy. The radiation measured was moving downward. The detector was facing upward. That makes it observed, measured, quantified spectroscopic data of downward radiation, commonly called back radiation. The instrument was specifically measuring radiation, not just any type of downward energy. As you know radiation can move from objects at any temperature to other objects at any temperature.

.and who says that direction is important...it isn't...hold a hot iron over your hand...the radiation is warming your hand, but it isn't back radiation...it is just radiation moving from a hot object to a cooler object....it is called fooling yourself with instrumentation....and by the way...did you notice that the area that they measured in alaska actually cooled several degrees during the time of the "observation"...does that mean that CO2 forces cooling?

A bunch of rambling.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Ian (and Sid), do you actually think you've thought of something that thousands of PhD scientists have not? Or are we back to the conspiracy? Seems to me, Ian, that those are your ONLY two choices with that post.

SSDD says none of those scientific agencies use data ...they just decided one day at a meeting on the AGW position
...SSDD ,clearly an Einstein, discovered this anomaly...

Rising Sea Levels Swallow 5 Pacific Islands

Never fails...when you guys see that you are losing, you start lying...I never said that they had no data...I said that they had none of a certain kind of data...that being, observed, measured, quantified data...they have plenty of data...most of it from models, or based on unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models, but they call it data..and they have data showing that if you cool an instrument to temperatures cooler than the atmosphere, energy will move from the atmosphere to the instrument...none of which supports the A in AGW...

 

[Wuwei]

...they think energy moving from a warm object to a cool object is back radiation...

Not true. Specifically the scientist believe that atmospheric spectra that show GHGs radiation moving downward is back radiation. The bold faced word radiation is to emphasize that it is radiation under discussion not just the more generic term energy.

 

[IanC]

Dude, I'm not sure how you are a skeptic when you champion the CO2 nonsense. That's my point. You seem to be at conflict with your ownself.

you seem to have a seriously flawed concept of what a skeptic is. a skeptic is someone who doesnt believe in anything until the evidence is sufficient to convince him that it is true, and is always willing to look at more evidence and change his position if necessary. I am just as skeptical about 'skeptical' climate science positions as I am about 'consensus' climate science positions. they have to meet the same burden of proof. I wont agree with something I believe to be false just because it comes from 'my' side. in fact, I am offended when the skeptical side stoops to telling the same type of lies, or exaggerations, as the consensus side.

you seem to be under SSDD's sway, and believe his nonsense about smart photons etc. presumably it is just because you have no physics background, or because you like his air of bravado and confidence. he is still wrong and/or confused about almost everything he says.

I will try again to point you in the right direction but it is you who has to think things through.

Thermal radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , basic boilerplate information, the first paragraph-

Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of charged particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. When the temperature of the body is greater than absolute zero, inter-atomic collisions cause the kinetic energy of the atoms or molecules to change. This results in charge-acceleration and/or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation, and the wide spectrum of radiation reflects the wide spectrum of energies and accelerations that occur even at a single temperature.

this is what I have been telling you for years. the speed and direction of random molecules are not controlled by the temperature of some receiving matter in the future. the idea that they are is absurd! how would they change direction? who/what would decide? where would the energy come from? what would be the effect on momentum and entropy? SSDD is wrong!

I have tried, without success, to get SSDD to describe what he thinks is happening to radiation when two objects are at the same temperature. he says no energy is exchanged, and then refuses to discuss anything further, like the loss of momentum and entropy change.

Black-body radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia , more boilerplate -

Two bodies that are at the same temperature stay in mutual thermal equilibrium, so a body at temperature T surrounded by a cloud of light at temperature T on average will emit as much light into the cloud as it absorbs, following Prevost's exchange principle, which refers to radiative equilibrium. The principle of detailed balance says that in thermodynamic equilibrium every elementary process works equally in its forward and backward sense.[21][22] Prevost also showed that the emission from a body is logically determined solely by its own internal state. The causal effect of thermodynamic absorption on thermodynamic (spontaneous) emission is not direct, but is only indirect as it affects the internal state of the body. This means that at thermodynamic equilibrium the amount of every wavelength in every direction of thermal radiation emitted by a body at temperature T, black or not, is equal to the corresponding amount that the body absorbs because it is surrounded by light at temperature T.[23]

these are basic principles. needless to say reality gets messy very quickly but how difficult would physics be if we didnt acknowledge Newton's first law, something that is never seen in our day-to-day life?

 

[SSDD]

And when you can't find it, ask yourself upon what are they making their claims?

Again you simply repeat nonsense ..those are Scientific Organization...the dat has been collected go look at it LOL

I have looked....and couldn't find the first shred....so I ask people who believe thinking that you must have seen it in order to believe...I mean, who would believe without actually having seen observed, measured, quantified evidence...and what do you know...you haven't seen it either...you claim to have, but you haven't as evidenced by your inability to bring any of it here.