Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[TyroneSlothrop]

[..it is very entertaining...I am going to be on the road today so won't have any time to read your posts till this evening, but I do look forward to you crying out the same old insults, and making the same impotent claims in your frustration...carry on Garth...

You are so stupid you publicly declared that NASA NOAA and the Climate agencies all made up AGW without having data...that is the Pits of Stupid and it is MINDLESS.,.you are a stupid Jabooney...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires
By Miles Grant

Network news coverage of the massive fires ripping through Canada’s tar sands hub, as fast and furious as trailers for a Hollywood disaster movie, has missed opportunities to provide real information about the heavily polluting tar sands industry and global warming’s role in adding fuel to the flames.

 

[SSDD]

[..it is very entertaining...I am going to be on the road today so won't have any time to read your posts till this evening, but I do look forward to you crying out the same old insults, and making the same impotent claims in your frustration...carry on Garth...

You are so stupid you publicly declared that NASA NOAA and the Climate agencies all made up AGW without having data...that is the Pits of Stupid and it is MINDLESS.,.you are a stupid Jabooney...

The stupid one is you Tyrone....believing mindlessly in NASA and NOAA when they don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...Earlier, you said that I was isolated..which of us is really isolated Tyrone...do you see anyone coming to help you out?....do you see anyone providing any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW to help bail you out of this and put me in my place?...I don't...what I see is people making excuses...what I see is people making claims of data that they can't seem to find to bring here...what I see is not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified data which is what I predicted in the first place...what I see is my prediction being born out....what I see is an idiot trying to convince me that data exists that he can't bring here to show....what I see is an idiot with misplaced faith in government institutions....what I see is just pathetic Tyrone...it is sad for someone to believe in a government so blindly that even when they can't find data that if it existed would be posted everywhere they still believe...

Alright...I am on the road...I will catch your next impotent posts this evening....carry on Garth..

 

[SSDD]

Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires
By Miles Grant

Network news coverage of the massive fires ripping through Canada’s tar sands hub, as fast and furious as trailers for a Hollywood disaster movie, has missed opportunities to provide real information about the heavily polluting tar sands industry and global warming’s role in adding fuel to the flames.

I know that you believe global warming is to blame Tyrone...and it is just sad....pitiful and sad. Talk to you this evening.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The stupid one is you Tyrone....believing mindlessly in NASA and NOAA when they don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...

Its is simply Mindless Stupidity to continue to assert that NOAA NASA and world wide Climate agencies woke up one fine day and they decided without data or measurements to declare a belief in AGW...Anyone who holds such a view is an unhinged Yabooney

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires
By Miles Grant

Network news coverage of the massive fires ripping through Canada’s tar sands hub, as fast and furious as trailers for a Hollywood disaster movie, has missed opportunities to provide real information about the heavily polluting tar sands industry and global warming’s role in adding fuel to the flames.

I know that you believe global warming is to blame Tyrone...and it is just sad....pitiful and sad. Talk to you this evening.

You are so moronic you actually insist that NASA NOAA and the all of the world's Climate experts made up AGW without data or measurements ...you know what that is called "The PITS OF STUPID'

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Network Newscasts Ignore Global Warming’s Role in Canada’s Wildfires
By Miles Grant

Network news coverage of the massive fires ripping through Canada’s tar sands hub, as fast and furious as trailers for a Hollywood disaster movie, has missed opportunities to provide real information about the heavily polluting tar sands industry and global warming’s role in adding fuel to the flames.

I know that you believe global warming is to blame Tyrone...and it is just sad....pitiful and sad. Talk to you this evening.

All I am going to do with you is repeat your mindless assertion that NOAA NASA and all of the world's Climate experts made up AGW on a whim without any measurements...that is called Moronia LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

May 3 2016
Exxon ‘Knew Earlier, They Knew With Certainty and They Knew Globally’
By Janine Jackson

“They knew that they could evade accountability, or at least delay regulatory and public scrutiny, by suggesting that there was doubt about the science.”


Apr 29 2016
Brendan DeMelle on Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up
By CounterSpin

Exxon knew decades ago that the increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels posed a global threat. And it acted on that information–with a conscious and vigorous effort to sow uncertainty about climate science and to forestall regulation on its industry.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The stupid one is you Tyrone....believing mindlessly in NASA and NOAA when they don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified data in support of the A in AGW...

Its is simply Mindless Stupidity to continue to assert that NOAA NASA and world wide Climate agencies woke up one fine day and they decided without data or measurements to declare a belief in AGW...Anyone who holds such a view is an unhinged Yabooney

You did.

God damn dude just admit it like your fellow AGW cult member Naomi Klein it is all about social economic change.



.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Sea-level rise factors unravelled - BBC News

Global sea-level rise since the 1970s has been predominantly driven by greenhouse gas emissions and not natural climate variability, a study suggests.

Over the last 100 years, sea levels have been rising much faster than over previous millennia.

Now, scientists have modeled the cumulative forces driving observed sea-level rise in the modern era.

Details of the work are published in Nature Climate Change.

"The influence of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols - the human component, due to the burning of fossil fuels principally - is small in the beginning of the 20th century, only about 15%," says Dr John Church, a sea-level rise expert at CSIRO, the Australian federal research agency.

"But after 1970 it's the dominant factor, contributing to about 70% of the rise from 1970 up to present day."

"Natural internal climate variability, while it affects sea-level on short periods, has very little impact on the trend during the 20th century.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

GIF that shows global warming is 'spiraling' out of control Christian Science Monitor
Global Warming Spiral Shows 165 Years Of Climate Change Tech Times
Highly Cited:One of the Most Convincing Climate Change Visualizations We've Ever Seen Gizmodo

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

but you can't provide any evidence that happens.

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

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

Why can it get chilly in the desert at night?

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

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

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

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

And, I already stated that all matter emits

There you go, admitting back radiation.

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

I have something better.

I already stated that all matter emits,

Your admission, no experiment needed.

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

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

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

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

there being nothing to absorb and hold the energy still radiating from the earth.

It absorbs it. It holds it. It doesn't radiate it back toward the Earth. Because 2nd Law. LOL!

This is how we know SSDD is a moron.

 

[jc456]

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

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

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

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

where do builders put radiant heaters? on the floor. Why is that?

 

[jc456]

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

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

Sorry, i meant embers. replace all statements of amber with 'ember'

 

[Wuwei]

I think he is unaware that water vapor is the only one of the so called greenhouse gasses that can absorb, and actually retain energy....

That's not true. All gasses, greenhouse or not, hold thermal energy. With water you are referring only to it's extra ability to change phases.

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

You have a contradiction here. You are referring to water as having latent energy which is only manifested during a phase change. (Vapor changing to snow or hail, water evaporating, snow melting, etc.) In a desert, water is not undergoing any phase change, so you can't use "phase change" in any statement about what's happening in a desert unless it rains. You will have to come up with a different reason for the climate in a desert.






.

 

[jc456]

the amber emitting and any other matter emitting

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

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

then why doesn't the hot amber get hotter?

Hotter than what?

than the temp it is while it is emitting.

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

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

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so it's strange that you believe all of this back radiation stuff and yet you don't believe in AGW. Seems a bit odd to me, it is the only way it would be possible. And why I don't believe in back radiation because the planet isn't warming.

 

[jc456]

I think he is unaware that water vapor is the only one of the so called greenhouse gasses that can absorb, and actually retain energy....

That's not true. All gasses, greenhouse or not, hold thermal energy. With water you are referring only to it's extra ability to change phases.

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

You have a contradiction here. You are referring to water as having latent energy which is only manifested during a phase change. (Vapor changing to snow or hail, water evaporating, snow melting, etc.) In a desert, water is not undergoing any phase change, so you can't use "phase change" in any statement about what's happening in a desert unless it rains. You will have to come up with a different reason for the climate in a desert.






.

funny how the desert is the one area that challenges the AGW crowd. Especially at night. Due to the lack of water vapor. how can that be. Seems you have as much of a contradiction.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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

then why doesn't the hot amber get hotter?

Hotter than what?

than the temp it is while it is emitting.

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

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

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so it's strange that you believe all of this back radiation stuff and yet you don't believe in AGW. Seems a bit odd to me, it is the only way it would be possible. And why I don't believe in back radiation because the planet isn't warming.

so it's strange that you believe all of this back radiation stuff

Yes, I believe the Stefan-Boltzmann Law shows how quickly matter above 0K radiates energy.

and yet you don't believe in AGW.

Matter radiating is not impacted by liberals desire to tax carbon.

And why I don't believe in back radiation because the planet isn't warming.

Warming, staying the same, cooling....doesn't change the fact that CO2 (or water vapor) in the atmosphere can absorb energy radiated from the surface and then emit it back toward the surface.

You don't think CO2 only radiates toward space, or that it measures the temperature of the Earth's surface and decides not to emit in that direction, or that photons or waves are "smart", do you?

 

[jc456]

then why doesn't the hot amber get hotter?

Hotter than what?

than the temp it is while it is emitting.

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

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

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so it's strange that you believe all of this back radiation stuff and yet you don't believe in AGW. Seems a bit odd to me, it is the only way it would be possible. And why I don't believe in back radiation because the planet isn't warming.

so it's strange that you believe all of this back radiation stuff

Yes, I believe the Stefan-Boltzmann Law shows how quickly matter above 0K radiates energy.

and yet you don't believe in AGW.

Matter radiating is not impacted by liberals desire to tax carbon.

And why I don't believe in back radiation because the planet isn't warming.

Warming, staying the same, cooling....doesn't change the fact that CO2 (or water vapor) in the atmosphere can absorb energy radiated from the surface and then emit it back toward the surface.

You don't think CO2 only radiates toward space, or that it measures the temperature of the Earth's surface and decides not to emit in that direction, or that photons or waves are "smart", do you?

So since CO2 is absorbed in the ocean does it emit in the water?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hotter than what?

than the temp it is while it is emitting.

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

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

Stefan–Boltzmann law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so it's strange that you believe all of this back radiation stuff and yet you don't believe in AGW. Seems a bit odd to me, it is the only way it would be possible. And why I don't believe in back radiation because the planet isn't warming.

so it's strange that you believe all of this back radiation stuff

Yes, I believe the Stefan-Boltzmann Law shows how quickly matter above 0K radiates energy.

and yet you don't believe in AGW.

Matter radiating is not impacted by liberals desire to tax carbon.

And why I don't believe in back radiation because the planet isn't warming.

Warming, staying the same, cooling....doesn't change the fact that CO2 (or water vapor) in the atmosphere can absorb energy radiated from the surface and then emit it back toward the surface.

You don't think CO2 only radiates toward space, or that it measures the temperature of the Earth's surface and decides not to emit in that direction, or that photons or waves are "smart", do you?

So since CO2 is absorbed in the ocean does it emit in the water?

Since all matter above 0K absorbs and emits, constantly, of course.