Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[jc456]

I can't post anything cause you or your side hasn't. I just said that.

I am done posting to you..all I get is your opinion repeated over and over..I will check if I see something new from you I will respond...as long as you are just repeating the same old opinion what is the point...

I see WINNING in my future. Thanks. I knew you couldn't produce evidence of your claim. Thanks for playing CO2 doesn't cause AGW. have a nice day.

 

[jc456]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?

You are repeating the same crap as SSDD. There is back-radiation because every substance radiates EM energy to every other substance in it's path no matter what the temperatures are. You have denied that understanding that is known by 100% of all scientists.

And yet you can't provide evidence of it can you? again, with what I just posted, everyone can see steam radiate up off of hot surfaces, I have never seen a hot item radiate toward the ground. NEVER. Post a red hot amber of anything and tell me which way the steam off of that amber will go. I bet It will go up. If I hold my hand over it it will be hotter at the top from farther away, and yet you will lose the heat within inches under it. hmmmmmmm why is that? The temperature of the air is equal around it? why is it hotter farther away on the top from that on the bottom? Cause heat rises, it is scientifically proven heat rises.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

In any discussion the wing nuts always come to a point where they say "see I wiped up the board with you"..More unscientific nonsense LOL

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?

You are repeating the same crap as SSDD. There is back-radiation because every substance radiates EM energy to every other substance in it's path no matter what the temperatures are. You have denied that understanding that is known by 100% of all scientists.

That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...

 

[jc456]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha, it doesn't work that way Tommie ole boy. you make a claim, you back the claim, not vice versa, I know you want it to be like that but, alas, it isn't. See I claim there is no back radiation. I make that claim due to the absence of links to prove it is there. comprehenday?

You are repeating the same crap as SSDD. There is back-radiation because every substance radiates EM energy to every other substance in it's path no matter what the temperatures are. You have denied that understanding that is known by 100% of all scientists.

That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...

I only do what you all do. We ask for evidence and get nothing. you repeat and So I must ask again cause it seems you don't understand what was asked.

 

[jc456]

In any discussion the wing nuts always come to a point where they say "see I wiped up the board with you"..More unscientific nonsense LOL

well then post up your winning post where you prove back radiation exists.

 

[Wuwei]

That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...

He is still posting crap. Talking about steam and amber etc. He is one of SSDD's minions that try to put scientific words in sentences that don't mean anything.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

links please

 

[jc456]

That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...

He is still posting crap. Talking about steam and amber etc. He is one of SSDD's minions that try to put scientific words in sentences that don't mean anything.

and you still can't produce back radiation evidence. So until then ladies and gents, SSDD and I are Winning.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...

He is still posting crap. Talking about steam and amber etc. He is one of SSDD's minions that try to put scientific words in sentences that don't mean anything.

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

 

[jc456]

one inverted picture of heat going toward the ground. Just one. why is that so difficult with so much evidence on your side?

 

[Wuwei]

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.

 

[jc456]

That person believes that all he has to do is repeat his opinion and that is it essentially...and its seriously nonsense ...his opinion...

He is still posting crap. Talking about steam and amber etc. He is one of SSDD's minions that try to put scientific words in sentences that don't mean anything.

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

dude, you posted tons of material good for you, it doesn't qualify if it doesn't back your position. I'd be pissed as well. All that effort you gave and nothing to show for it cause it didn't achieve the goal. The goal, prove CO2 acts like a sun. Dude, you could post a lab experiment, that would do it, you could post up observed data and that would do it, you could just post up a picture of heat moving toward the ground and you got it. I'm just saying, you make it sound simple and here you are confronted with your own failure. Wow.

 

[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.

 

[Wuwei]

you could just post up a picture of heat moving toward the ground and you got it. I'm just saying, you make it sound simple and here you are confronted with your own failure.

Here is a simple experiment for you that you might be able to manage. Turn on an iron and let it get real hot. Yes you will feel the heat above it. Hold your hand one or two inches under the iron. And let me know if your hand stays cold.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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.

Like I said they did not arrive at their positions on Global warming via science or facts..its dogma ...political dogma ...but in places where the AGW is already impacting that political dogma is weakening ..this is from the front page Miami Paper
S. Florida Republicans lead their party from climate change denial
[email protected]
WASHINGTON
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo and Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch, whose South Florida districts are already enduring increased flooding, salt water intrusion and other effects of rising sea levels, are leading the first truly bipartisan congressional effort to tackle climate change.

Joined by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican, they’ve formed a caucus that uses an unusual “buddy system” in which each Democratic member must bring along a Republican colleague willing to renounce party orthodoxy and stop minimizing the peril – or even existence – of global warming.

 

[Wuwei]

Like I said they did not arrive at their positions on Global warming via science or facts..its dogma ...political dogma ...but in places where the AGW is already impacting that political dogma is weakening ..this is from the front page Miami Paper
S. Florida Republicans lead their party from climate change denial
[email protected]
WASHINGTON
Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo and Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch, whose South Florida districts are already enduring increased flooding, salt water intrusion and other effects of rising sea levels, are leading the first truly bipartisan congressional effort to tackle climate change.

Joined by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Miami Republican, they’ve formed a caucus that uses an unusual “buddy system” in which each Democratic member must bring along a Republican colleague willing to renounce party orthodoxy and stop minimizing the peril – or even existence – of global warming.

I live in FL too. It was amazing that Gov Scott issued an order a few months ago for his people never to say "climate change"

 

[jc456]

you could just post up a picture of heat moving toward the ground and you got it. I'm just saying, you make it sound simple and here you are confronted with your own failure.

Here is a simple experiment for you that you might be able to manage. Turn on an iron and let it get real hot. Yes you will feel the heat above it. Hold your hand one or two inches under the iron. And let me know if your hand stays cold.

how do you want the iron positioned? I mean if hold the handle and point the flat hot iron on the top it will mostly all rise upward. if I hold the iron with the plate on the bottom, two inches from the bottom I will feel a little heat, but above it I will feel more heat cause it will rise. I never said that all things don't radiate I state that heat will not radiate to the ground. Ever been near a fire pit? Where is the hottest point of a fire? The sides or the top? Shit dude, had a fire Saturday night at the cottage and the energy in the middle was awesome you could feel the pressure of the heat it could blow up a balloon. Hot air balloon that is. but off to the sides, you had to get within two feet to feel the most comfortable heat. It's all about energy and direction and all you can do is say it radiates. Well that doesn't prove anything without energy. It has to move toward something. you can't prove heat moving downward.

 

[RollingThunder]

In any discussion the wing nuts always come to a point where they say "see I wiped up the board with you"..More unscientific nonsense LOL

well then post up your winning post where you prove back radiation exists.

OK troll. Here you go. From one of the denier cult's favorite scientists...Dr. Roy Spencer.

Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
July 23rd, 2010
(excerpts)
I’m getting a lot of e-mail traffic from some nice folks who are trying to convince me that the physics of the so-called Greenhouse Effect are not physically possible. More specifically, that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is not physically capable of causing warming. These arguments usually involve claims that “back radiation” can not flow from the cooler upper layers of the atmosphere to the warmer lower layers. This back radiation is a critical component of the theoretical explanation for the Greenhouse Effect.

Sometimes the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or Kirchoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, are invoked in these arguments against back radiation and the greenhouse effect. One of the more common statements is, “How can a cooler atmospheric layer possibly heat a warmer atmospheric layer below it?” The person asking the question obviously thinks the hypothetical case represented by their question is so ridiculous that no one could disagree with them. Well, I’m going to go ahead and say it: THE PRESENCE OF COOLER OBJECTS CAN, AND DO, CAUSE WARMER OBJECTS TO GET EVEN HOTTER.

Examples of objects with lower temperatures causing objects with higher temperatures to become even higher still are all around us. Let’s use clouds at night. Almost everyone has experienced the fact that cloudy nights tend to be warmer than clear nights. The most dramatic effect I’ve seen of this is in the winter, on a cold clear night with snow cover. The temperature will drop rapidly. But if a cloud layer moves in, the temperature will either stop dropping, or even warm dramatically. This warming occurs because the cloud radiates much more IR energy downward than does a clear, dry atmosphere. This changes the energy budget of the surface dramatically, often causing warming -- even though the cloud is usually at a lower temperature than the ground is. Even high altitude cirrus clouds at a temperature well below than of the surface, can cause warming. So, once again, we see that the presence of a colder object can cause a warmer object to become warmer still.
(Read more at website)

 

[Wuwei]

I never said that all things don't radiate I state that heat will not radiate to the ground.

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 were referring to conduction, not radiation.