Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[SSDD]

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.

So you are proving that the iron will radiate to his cooler hand...is that proof of back radiation? Is that what serves as proof of back radiation in your mind?

 

[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

You posted plenty of links...no doubt...and in doing so, you have proven that you don't have the first idea of what observed, measured, quantified evidence is because there is none in any of the links you provided that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW.

How do you explain NOT WHAT I BELIEVE ...but what these Scientific Organization believe ...how do you explain that

 

[SSDD]

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)

So you have posted a mind experiment...which part of that do you believe is observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming

OK...so go visit one of those studies and copy and paste whatever you believe is there that represents observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

How in the world do you explain to yourself that all these Science organization support AGW being real ...How

 

[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

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)

So you have posted a mind experiment...which part of that do you believe is observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW?

How do you explain what NASA believes ?

 

[SSDD]

Lets take it step by step...try to follow ...

1) the Scientific Organizations I linked to use the Scientific Method. This involves observation; Hypothesis about the observed phenomena; Experimentation to test the hypothesis...

OK...if there is experimentation, then there should be observed, measured, quantified evidence that resulted from the experiments....but there is none...there is no experiment that demonstrates that adding a bit of CO2 will cause warming...that is what we are getting at....there are no experiments...and there are no observed, measured, quantified data....there are opinions and assumptions aplenty...but no observed, measured, quantified evidence....

2) The Climate Science world has settled the science on AGW...they believe it to be true

I can only guess that you are assuming that there is actual observed, measured, quantified data...and that there have been experiments performed that support the claim that man is altering the global climate...you assumed wrong...as evidenced by your inability to bring any observed, measured, quantified data forward...

3) Since #1 and #2 above are without argument True then they have the quantifiable data to support their rather public stance ...they have published Peer Reviewed papers that lead to the conclusions that AGW is real...you can check my links to see that it is true

Since you can't provide any observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW...it stands to reason that your points 1 and 2 are not true...

 

[SSDD]

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming

OK...so go visit one of those studies and copy and paste whatever you believe is there that represents observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

You bring links here that support your outlandish claim that NOAA NASA all the Met organization of the world have no data to back their beliefs...its just a crazy unhinged claim LOL

You're inability to provide it is proof goober....I ask for observed, measured, quantified data from the real world and you can't provide it..how much more proof do you need that it doesn't exist? You can't find it...your buds can't find it....and if actual hard evidence that man was altering the global climate existed, there would be no where to go to get away from it... there is none...

 

[SSDD]

that's a bunch of mumbo jumbo with no evidence at all. All it is someone saying someone trapped it and found it. No evidence there. Did you bother to read it? I mean dude, I expect better from you.

try to link to anyone or anything that supports your nonsense...I already know what you believe because you have spammed the thread repeatedly with your position however you fail to support your position in any way ...you merely repeat it...

BTW, you know you have to have back radiation for your hypothesis to be good right? Not that CO2 absorbs, that's science and we all know this. So now post up that link with the back radiation that can prove CO2 is a sun.

Nonsense ..science supports my position that is why you cannot post anything but your opinion ..over and over

Scientific organizations support your position...science is all about observing, measuring, and quantifying...and there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the opinion that science is holding.

There sure is or the Science would not agree ...there is evidence...what there is no evidence of is your claim that one day all these Scientific organization decided out of the blue to start saying AGW is real without having any data LOL

Every time you fail to provide the requested observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the A in AGW you provide more evidence in support of my claim...

You think science can't be bought? You really think that? A bucket full of money will create consensus between blacks and the KKK.

And yes, they are saying that AGW is real without any real data...that is exactly what I am saying and the fact that no one can seem to produce any observed, measured, quantified data supporting the A in AGW is evidence that supports my claim...if there were such evidence it would be easy to find and you guys would keep on posting it till I was buried in it....thus far, you have shown absolutely no observed, measured, quantified evidence...because there is none for you to post...

 

[SSDD]

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, it can't be measured at ambient temperature even though you claim that twice as much is radiating back to earth as comes in from the sun..

Then why is science saying what they are saying ...what is your theory about why the dominant belief is that AGW is real...how do you explain that LOL

$$$$$$$$ if the evidence existed, you should be able to find it with no problem...but you can't...there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence...it doesn't exist and that is why you are left just making excuses for not being able to post any.

 

[SSDD]

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

You posted plenty of links...no doubt...and in doing so, you have proven that you don't have the first idea of what observed, measured, quantified evidence is because there is none in any of the links you provided that supports the anthropogenic component of AGW.

How do you explain NOT WHAT I BELIEVE ...but what these Scientific Organization believe ...how do you explain that

Money...politics...power...take your pick...I suspect that it is all three....

If the scientific organizations had observed, measured, quantified data to support their beliefs, don't you think they would have it posted every where? Hard evidence is all that is required to convince skeptics...you don't see skeptics arguing that gravity doesn't exist...or that water boils at 212 degrees...or that the sun rises in the east....those things are observable and there is hard, observed, measured quantified evidence to support the fact that they are real...there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim that man is altering the global climate.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

And yes, they are saying that AGW is real without any real data...that is exactly what I am saying

OK I understand now ...you are unhinged from normal reality ...now I understand ...no wonder OK then ...

 

[SSDD]

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect.”

It’s important to be clear that by no means did the Berkeley researchers need to do this in order to prove that carbon dioxide is trapping heat in the atmosphere: as physicist and climate expert Ken Caldeira explained to the San Francisco Chronicle, “the underlying physics is robust and was never in question.” Climate scientist Andrew Dessler told the Associated Press that the work is somewhat similar to using a falling rock to confirm gravity.

But the findings do help validate climate models that depend, in part, on correctly simulating the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Mashable’s Andrew Freedman explains. All of that research warning that human activity is directly contributing to global warming, in other words, and that “substantial and sustained” reductions in emissions are our best hope of avoiding “severe, pervasive and irreversible” consequences, is no longer deniable — not that it ever was.

Scientists stick it to climate deniers: Study provides direct evidence that human activity is causing global warming

OK...so go visit one of those studies and copy and paste whatever you believe is there that represents observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis.

How in the world do you explain to yourself that all these Science organization support AGW being real ...How

I don't have to explain it...I only have to point out that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim and the fact that you can't provide any, nor can anyone else does nothing but prove my point...I suspect that money, politics, and political power are responsible...those factors have been known to buy scientific opinion in the past...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Money...politics...power...take your pick...I suspect that it is all three....

do you have any data any proof of your allegations ?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I don't have to explain it...I only have to point out that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim and the fact that you can't provide any, nor can anyone else does nothing but prove my point...I suspect that money, politics, and political power are responsible...those factors have been known to buy scientific opinion in the past...

There is data there certainly is because scientist act on data and science believes in AGW

 

[SSDD]

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)

So you have posted a mind experiment...which part of that do you believe is observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the A in AGW?

How do you explain what NASA believes ?

How do you explain why NASA claims what they do regarding AGW when there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim?...If it were some other topic we were discussion and billions upon billions, upon billions of dollars were at stake, do you think you would have a problem supposing that since there was no actual evidence to support the claim that perhaps money was at work?

 

[SSDD]

And yes, they are saying that AGW is real without any real data...that is exactly what I am saying

OK I understand now ...you are unhinged from normal reality ...now I understand ...no wonder OK then ...

So prove it....show me some observed, measured, quantified data that supports the claim that man is altering the global climate....or don't and continue to prove that you are what climate science has called a useful idiot.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The thesis being held forth by wing nut is that NOAA NASA all the Meteorological organizations and all the Science organization that believe in AGW just decided to all say the same thing with no data ...yeah OK ...Unbelievable but there is the core belief...'Nuff said ...

 

[SSDD]

Money...politics...power...take your pick...I suspect that it is all three....

do you have any data any proof of your allegations ?

NO...data won't prove my allegations...observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate would prove me wrong in a heartbeat....the absence of observed, measured, quantified data proves my allegations.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Money...politics...power...take your pick...I suspect that it is all three....

do you have any data any proof of your allegations ?

NO...data won't prove my allegations...observed, measured, quantified data supporting the claim that man is altering the global climate would prove me wrong in a heartbeat....the absence of observed, measured, quantified data proves my allegations.

I am done posting to you ...I mean its ridiculous to believe that Science has no data LOL I mean I am laughing as I type because that is outlandish...there is no way to discuss this with you.... absurd

 

[SSDD]

I don't have to explain it...I only have to point out that there is no observed, measured, quantified evidence to support the claim and the fact that you can't provide any, nor can anyone else does nothing but prove my point...I suspect that money, politics, and political power are responsible...those factors have been known to buy scientific opinion in the past...

There is data there certainly is because scientist act on data and science believes in AGW

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.