Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[jc456]

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 are referring to conduction, not radiation.

correct back radiation to the surface dude. All things radiate the full area around an object. That is science. I've states such to others in here. But now you need to discuss the energy to move the heat from the object and again, that will always be up. unless you can prove it otherwise. I merely ask for evidence to demonstrate this ability.

so if you have that amber I spoke of earlier, and you suspended it, would the amount of heat dissipate as you moved away from the object?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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.

the dude is doing this

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

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 are referring to conduction, not radiation.

correct back radiation to the surface dude. All things radiate the full area around an object. That is science. I've states such to others in here. But now you need to discuss the energy to move the heat from the object and again, that will always be up. unless you can prove it otherwise. I merely ask for evidence to demonstrate this ability.

so if you have that amber I spoke of earlier, and you suspended it, would the amount of heat dissipate as you moved away from the object?

Dance dude LOL you are wiping up the board with everybody now due to your brilliance LOL

 

[jc456]

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.

dude you are now splitting hairs. I don't believe that CO2 warms the surface of the planet. Period. That would require back radiation. And I say that doesn't happen. I've asked for and repeatedly been ignored for the evidence that back radiation warms the surface of the planet. Ask Ian, I've never wavered from that stance.

 

[jc456]

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 are referring to conduction, not radiation.

correct back radiation to the surface dude. All things radiate the full area around an object. That is science. I've states such to others in here. But now you need to discuss the energy to move the heat from the object and again, that will always be up. unless you can prove it otherwise. I merely ask for evidence to demonstrate this ability.

so if you have that amber I spoke of earlier, and you suspended it, would the amount of heat dissipate as you moved away from the object?

Dance dude LOL you are wiping up the board with everybody now due to your brilliance LOL

I don't dance that well, so that can't be me.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I don't dance that well, so that can't be me.

I am confident you do not do much well ...your posting is very poor quality...just saying..

 

[Wuwei]

dude you are now splitting hairs. I don't believe that CO2 warms the surface of the planet. Period.

No scientist in their right mind would say that CO2 warms the surface of earth. You really don't understand much of anything... CO2 and other GHG's slows the surface heat loss. It keeps the energy that the sun provides "blanketed" so the earth doesn't totally freeze.

 

[jc456]

dude you are now splitting hairs. I don't believe that CO2 warms the surface of the planet. Period.

No scientist in their right mind would say that CO2 warms the surface of earth. You really don't understand much of anything... CO2 and other GHG's slows the surface heat loss. It keeps the energy that the sun provides "blanketed" so the earth doesn't totally freeze.

well wait, you all were saying that IR radiates to the surface warming the surfacing. which is it? By the way, I believe that water in the air holds more heat than CO2 could. I asked if the sun was a minimum, how is it temperatures could go up? I was told CO2. how can that be? If there is less LWIR how can it get warmer? I'm just saying.

 

[jc456]

I don't dance that well, so that can't be me.

I am confident you do not do much well ...your posting is very poor quality...just saying..

well that is the only thing you'd be confident in then.

 

[Wuwei]

well wait, you all were saying that IR radiates to the surface warming the surfacing. which is it? By the way, I believe that water in the air holds more heat than CO2 could. I asked if the sun was a minimum, how is it temperatures could go up? I was told CO2. how can that be? If there is less LWIR how can it get warmer? I'm just saying.

You are full of incomplete sentences. You are rambling with questions that have no relation to what was under discussion. It is impossible to explain anything to you if you don't have at least a little understanding of science. I have gone over all this once before to you and you continually come back with scientific pronouncements that are naive and totally off target.

 

[jc456]

well wait, you all were saying that IR radiates to the surface warming the surfacing. which is it? By the way, I believe that water in the air holds more heat than CO2 could. I asked if the sun was a minimum, how is it temperatures could go up? I was told CO2. how can that be? If there is less LWIR how can it get warmer? I'm just saying.

You are full of incomplete sentences. You are rambling with questions that have no relation to what was under discussion. It is impossible to explain anything to you if you don't have at least a little understanding of science. I have gone over all this once before to you and you continually come back with scientific pronouncements that are naive and totally off target.

does IR radiate to the surface?

 

[RollingThunder]

I've asked for and repeatedly been ignored for the evidence that back radiation warms the surface of the planet.

And, JustCrazy, you have been shown that evidence many times. You always ignore it and go on repeating your demented lies.

I just showed you some evidence from a scientist that you denier cultists cite all the time....right here in post #499.

 

[RollingThunder]

well wait, you all were saying that IR radiates to the surface warming the surfacing. which is it? By the way, I believe that water in the air holds more heat than CO2 could. I asked if the sun was a minimum, how is it temperatures could go up? I was told CO2. how can that be? If there is less LWIR how can it get warmer? I'm just saying.

You are full of incomplete sentences. You are rambling with questions that have no relation to what was under discussion. It is impossible to explain anything to you if you don't have at least a little understanding of science. I have gone over all this once before to you and you continually come back with scientific pronouncements that are naive and totally off target.

does IR radiate to the surface?

Yes!

The Earth receives energy from the sun, heating the Earth, and then re-radiates that heat energy as long wave infrared radiation, back out towards outer space. Most of the Earth's atmosphere is transparent to that IR radiation, but greenhouse gases have a physical molecular structure that causes them to absorb infrared radiation and either re-radiate that IR radiation in all directions or transmit the increased molecular vibrational energy to surrounding gas molecules (thus heating the atmosphere). Some of the energy the greenhouse gases radiate does indeed reach the surface, keeping the planet significantly warmer than it would be in the absence of any greenhouse gases.

Too bad you're obviously too stupid and brainwashed to understand that, JustCrazy.

 

[jc456]

I've asked for and repeatedly been ignored for the evidence that back radiation warms the surface of the planet.

And, JustCrazy, you have been shown that evidence many times. You always ignore it and go on repeating your demented lies.

I just showed you some evidence from a scientist that you denier cultists cite all the time....right here.

really? hmmm what is that evidence in that post? Everyone knows that it is warmer at night with cloud cover, the LWIR reflects off the clouds back to the surface, in the same manner the clouds reflect sunlight back to space.

 

[jc456]

well wait, you all were saying that IR radiates to the surface warming the surfacing. which is it? By the way, I believe that water in the air holds more heat than CO2 could. I asked if the sun was a minimum, how is it temperatures could go up? I was told CO2. how can that be? If there is less LWIR how can it get warmer? I'm just saying.

You are full of incomplete sentences. You are rambling with questions that have no relation to what was under discussion. It is impossible to explain anything to you if you don't have at least a little understanding of science. I have gone over all this once before to you and you continually come back with scientific pronouncements that are naive and totally off target.

does IR radiate to the surface?

Yes!

The Earth receives energy from the sun, heating the Earth, and then re-radiates that heat energy as long wave infrared radiation, back out towards outer space. Most of the Earth's atmosphere is transparent to that IR radiation, but greenhouse gases have a physical molecular structure that causes them to absorb infrared radiation and either re-radiate that radiation in all directions or transmit the increased molecular vibrational energy to surrounding gas molecules (heating the atmosphere).

well if it actually heated the atmosphere, there would need to be a hot spot. Right?

 

[RollingThunder]

I've asked for and repeatedly been ignored for the evidence that back radiation warms the surface of the planet.

And, JustCrazy, you have been shown that evidence many times. You always ignore it and go on repeating your demented lies.

I just showed you some evidence from a scientist that you denier cultists cite all the time....right here.

really? hmmm what is that evidence in that post? Everyone knows that it is warmer at night with cloud cover, the LWIR reflects off the clouds back to the surface, in the same manner the clouds reflect sunlight back to space.

And, of course, you failed to read the whole article, you deranged troll.

From that article by Dr. Roy Spencer....

As mentioned above, in the case of the cold depths of outer space surrounding the Earth’s solar-heated surface, ANY infrared absorber that gets between the Earth’s surface and space will cause the surface to warm. This radiative insulating function occurs in the atmosphere because of the presence of greenhouse gases, that is, gases that absorb and emit significant amounts of infrared energy…(mostly water vapor, CO2, and methane). Clouds also contribute to the Greenhouse Effect. Kirchoff’s Law of thermal radiation says (roughly), that a good infrared absorber is an equally good infrared emitter. So, each layer of the atmosphere is continuously absorbing IR, as well as emitting it. This is what makes the Greenhouse Effect so much more difficult to understand conceptually than solar heating of the Earth. While the sun is a single source, and most of the energy absorbed by the Earth is at a single level (the surface of the ground), in the case of infrared energy, every layer becomes both as source of energy and an absorber of energy.

It also helps that our eyes are much more sensitive to solar radiation than they (or even our skin) are to infrared radiation. It’s more difficult to conceptualize that which you can’t see. Our intuition begins to fail us when presented with this complexity. The following illustration shows some of these energy flows: just the IR being emitted upward and downward by different atmospheric layers. If I included arrows representing the IR energy being absorbed by those layers, too, it would become hopelessly indecipherable.



As a result of the atmosphere’s ability to radiatively insulate the Earth’s surface from losing infrared energy directly to the “cold” depths of outer space, the surface warms to a higher average temperature than it would have if the atmosphere was not there. The no-atmosphere, global average surface temperature has been theoretically calculated to be around 0 deg. F. This, then, constitutes the basic mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect. Greenhouse gases represent a “radiative blanket” that keeps the Earth’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be without those gases present. In fact, research published in the 1960s showed that, if the current atmosphere suddenly became still -- with no wind, evaporation, and convective overturning transporting excess energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere -- the average surface temperature of the Earth would warm dramatically, from 0 deg. F with no greenhouse gases, to about 140 deg. F. That the real world temperature is much lower, around 59 deg. F, is due to the cooling effects of weather transporting heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere through convective air currents. Weather as we know it would not even exist without the greenhouse effect continuously destabilizing the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. Vertical air currents associated with weather act to stabilize the atmospheric temperature profile, but it is the greenhouse effect that keeps the process going by warming the lower atmosphere, and cooling the upper atmosphere, to the point where convection must occur.

 

[jc456]

I've asked for and repeatedly been ignored for the evidence that back radiation warms the surface of the planet.

And, JustCrazy, you have been shown that evidence many times. You always ignore it and go on repeating your demented lies.

I just showed you some evidence from a scientist that you denier cultists cite all the time....right here.

really? hmmm what is that evidence in that post? Everyone knows that it is warmer at night with cloud cover, the LWIR reflects off the clouds back to the surface, in the same manner the clouds reflect sunlight back to space.

And, of course, you failed to read the whole article, you deranged troll.

From that article by Dr. Roy Spencer....

As mentioned above, in the case of the cold depths of outer space surrounding the Earth’s solar-heated surface, ANY infrared absorber that gets between the Earth’s surface and space will cause the surface to warm. This radiative insulating function occurs in the atmosphere because of the presence of greenhouse gases, that is, gases that absorb and emit significant amounts of infrared energy…(mostly water vapor, CO2, and methane). Clouds also contribute to the Greenhouse Effect. Kirchoff’s Law of thermal radiation says (roughly), that a good infrared absorber is an equally good infrared emitter. So, each layer of the atmosphere is continuously absorbing IR, as well as emitting it. This is what makes the Greenhouse Effect so much more difficult to understand conceptually than solar heating of the Earth. While the sun is a single source, and most of the energy absorbed by the Earth is at a single level (the surface of the ground), in the case of infrared energy, every layer becomes both as source of energy and an absorber of energy.

It also helps that our eyes are much more sensitive to solar radiation than they (or even our skin) are to infrared radiation. It’s more difficult to conceptualize that which you can’t see. Our intuition begins to fail us when presented with this complexity. The following illustration shows some of these energy flows: just the IR being emitted upward and downward by different atmospheric layers. If I included arrows representing the IR energy being absorbed by those layers, too, it would become hopelessly indecipherable.



As a result of the atmosphere’s ability to radiatively insulate the Earth’s surface from losing infrared energy directly to the “cold” depths of outer space, the surface warms to a higher average temperature than it would have if the atmosphere was not there. The no-atmosphere, global average surface temperature has been theoretically calculated to be around 0 deg. F. This, then, constitutes the basic mechanism of the Greenhouse Effect. Greenhouse gases represent a “radiative blanket” that keeps the Earth’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be without those gases present. In fact, research published in the 1960s showed that, if the current atmosphere suddenly became still -- with no wind, evaporation, and convective overturning transporting excess energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere -- the average surface temperature of the Earth would warm dramatically, from 0 deg. F with no greenhouse gases, to about 140 deg. F. That the real world temperature is much lower, around 59 deg. F, is due to the cooling effects of weather transporting heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere through convective air currents. Weather as we know it would not even exist without the greenhouse effect continuously destabilizing the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere. Vertical air currents associated with weather act to stabilize the atmospheric temperature profile, but it is the greenhouse effect that keeps the process going by warming the lower atmosphere, and cooling the upper atmosphere, to the point where convection must occur.

again, if there was actual heat in the atmosphere there would be a hot spot. There isn't one. Fail.

Clouds reflect LWIR back that's it along with stored energy from the absorbed sunshine.

CO2 does not make the surface warmer.

 

[Wuwei]

And, of course, you failed to read the whole article, you deranged troll.

From that article by Dr. Roy Spencer...
..........
..........

My god. JC failed to understand that and it was so clear. I don't think he is capable of understanding anything involving science. His "retort" totally missed the mark. JC can't think for himself. He can only parrot phrases he reads from other deniers. We are wasting our time trying to "communicate" with him.

 

[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

all you do is pretend your statements counter the statements of Scientific Agencies..they are based on science ..you are based on "repeating stupid"..Science on my side nothing on your side excpt your opinions which are nonsense

Sure they are...or used to be anyway....I can't help but notice that you still haven't posted the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW....are you wondering why you can't find any yet?

 

[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 perfectly understand that agencies say that there is AGW....That isn't in contention...of course agencies have said all sorts of things in the past that turned out to not be true....What I am saying is that there is not the first shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW....

How hard is it for you to understand that?