Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[SSDD]

wuewi said something a few posts back and I can't help but wonder if you believe the same thing....he claimed that if you hold a hot iron over your hand the energy you feel warming your hand is back radiation?

That is a lie. I told Popeye that it was radiation moving downward. I never said it was back radiation. Go back and read it. Is that the best argument you have now? Lying?

Sorry guy...I don't lie...You said...in post #500:

Yes you did say that. You denied back radiation. The heat from the bottom of the iron is radiation downward. QED.

He denied back radiation and you said that the radiation is downward...QED....quod erat demonstrandum....which is what had to be proven.. You stated explicitly that the downward radiation proves back radiation....you said what you said....

 

[SSDD]

Tell me crick...do you think that if you hold a hot iron above your hand and feel the heat that you are experiencing back radiation? Are you as misinformed as wuwei? Tell me you think the energy radiating from the iron to your hand is back radiation because it is moving a a direction that you perceive as down....

You are lying again. Go back and read my discussion with Popeye.

Again, I don't lie...post #500 in this thread...

Yes you did say that. You denied back radiation. The heat from the bottom of the iron is radiation downward. QED.

He denied back radiation and you said that the radiation is downward...QED....quod erat demonstrandum....which is what had to be proven.. You stated explicitly that the downward radiation proves back radiation....you said what you said....

 

[SSDD]

Which evidence would it be that has left the skeptics unconvinced?

I am sure you can come up with data or at least a link to someone or some agency that says there is no AGW ...but all you do is keep repeating nonsense

I can come up with all sorts of data that climate science uses....model output...unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models...corleatory data...but no observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW...that is my entire point and the fact that you warmers can't bring any forward only proves my point.

Then... why don't you?

What's the point? we all know that it isn't observed, measured, quantified data...therefore it is not what I have been asking for....and by now we all know that what I have been asking for doesn't exist even though the atmosphere is a measurable, observable, quantifiable entity.

No one cares about your denial....you are isolated .....

I am never isolated...and it is you who is in denial.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence exists and yet you can't accept the fact...you have been in denial of that reality since this conversation started...and I must say, watching you deny the obvious has been quite entertaining....were there any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW surely you, or someone would have brought it here to show me how wrong I am. Hasn't happened, nor will it.

 

[SSDD]

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.

Hey, that's me....tell me Ian, which observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered out here in the real observable, measurable, quantifiable world regarding the observable, measurable, quantifiable, testable atmosphere convinced you? Clearly there is none, so what convinced you?....climate models that fail within days?....unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?....algore's inconvenient truth? What actual evidence convinced you Ian...lets see it...maybe it will convince me if it is actual evidence that can be observed, measured and quantified?...if it isn't then is it really evidence or just something that agrees with your preconceived notions?

wuewi said something a few posts back and I can't help but wonder if you believe the same thing....he claimed that if you hold a hot iron over your hand the energy you feel warming your hand is back radiation? Do you believe that as well?...do you believe that because the energy is moving in a direction that you perceive as down that makes it back radiation?...or do you think that back radiation would be energy moving from your hand, warmed by the iron back to the iron?....energy movement, that can't by the way be measured.

OK, let's use an iron for the example.

before you turn it on it is in equilibrium with its environment, it is radiating out the same amount of energy that it is receiving. the amount of energy that it is receiving from the environment is the back radiation. when you turn on the iron the heating element warms the plate until it comes to equilibrium, the plate's temperature is a function of energy in (heating element and environment) minus energy out (heat loss to the environment). the plate will be warmer than the environment but cooler than the heating element.

if you change the environment to a freezer then the cooler environment will send less energy back to the iron, and the equilibrium temperature will be lower.

this of course is a generalized case where we assume that the environment is not impacted by the energy coming from the iron, and the iron's heat source is constantly producing the same amount of heat energy. in reality the iron is controlled by a thermostat, so it would run more often in the freezer rather than come to a cooler equilibrium temp. either way the environmental energy input will affect the temperature or the amount of electricity needed to maintain the temperature.

So unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mind experiments are what have convinced you....OK.. I knew that it wasn't observed, measured, quantified data since none exists but wondered what convinced you...clearly, you aren't much of a skeptic and probably shouldn't call yourself one since it didn't take much to convince you...in fact, it apparently took no actual evidence, even bad evidence at all...just a lousy mind experiment...to bad...

 

[SSDD]

Animation shows how global warming is spiraling out of control

Climate scientist at University of Reading | IPCC AR5 Author & NERC Research Fellow | Editor of @ClimateLabBook blog
Ed Hawkins ‏@ed_hawkins
Spiralling global temperatures from 1850-2016 (full animation) http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/spiralling-global-temperatures/…

Really?...a fraction of a degree in a hundred years mostly due to an el nino and data manipulation...you call that spiraling out of control?

 

[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?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I am never isolated...and it is you who is in denial.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence exists and yet you can't accept the fact...you have been in denial of that reality since this conversation started...and I must say, watching you deny the obvious has been quite entertaining....were there any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW surely you, or someone would have brought it here to show me how wrong I am. Hasn't happened, nor will it.

Look I am not going to weight your opinion over this guy sorry...he out classes you

Climate scientist at University of Reading | IPCC AR5 Author & NERC Research Fellow | Editor of @ClimateLabBook blog
Ed Hawkins ‏@ed_hawkins

 

[SSDD]

I am never isolated...and it is you who is in denial.....no observed, measured, quantified evidence exists and yet you can't accept the fact...you have been in denial of that reality since this conversation started...and I must say, watching you deny the obvious has been quite entertaining....were there any actual observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW surely you, or someone would have brought it here to show me how wrong I am. Hasn't happened, nor will it.

Look I am not going to weight your opinion over this guy sorry...he out classes you

Climate scientist at University of Reading | IPCC AR5 Author & NERC Research Fellow | Editor of @ClimateLabBook blog
Ed Hawkins ‏@ed_hawkins

So bring some observed, measured, quantified evidence from him....and when you can find none, you will be right back where you are....denying the fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

So bring some observed, measured, quantified evidence from him....and when you can find none, you will be right back where you are....denying the fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW.

you are the one claiming that you have more knowledge than the Scientific world does...how about proving that you know more than NOAA NASA the Metereological Government agencies ...come on you claim they are wrong ...you show your cards LOL

 

[SSDD]

So bring some observed, measured, quantified evidence from him....and when you can find none, you will be right back where you are....denying the fact that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW.

you are the one claiming that you have more knowledge than the Scientific world does...how about proving that you know more than NOAA NASA the Metereological Government agencies ...come on you claim they are wrong ...you show your cards LOL

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...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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

 

[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?

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.

 

[jc456]

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'm not sure you can say wrong. i can say they haven't proved it and not me telling them they are wrong. They haven't done the science expected, and all we're asking is to show the science that directed the conclusion. yet none exists. And science procedures includes observations and testing. Where are they? The story is incomplete. I can point to anomalies that don't line up. Such as the US and it's winters over the last 30 years.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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...

 

[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?

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.

 

[jc456]

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...

dude, really? Peer review? really? you know what that is right, the good old boys club, scratch my back I'll scratch yours group? hahahaahahahahahahahaha

 

[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?

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.

 

[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?

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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.