Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[IanC]

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'

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.

 

[Crick]

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'

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.

So CO2's GHG effect is lost as a rounding error in the water vapor. There's the hard scientist for you.

 

[IanC]

could climate science be more fixated on CO2? I dont think so.

 

[Crick]

Yeah, H A R D science.

 

[IanC]

Yeah, H A R D science.

climate science is NOT hard science. when was the last time they made an effort to verify their models? or even their statistics?

the IPCC admits that the models cannot do clouds/ water vapour very well, and then just ignores it. the biggest piece of the puzzle is not constrained so they concentrate on CO2 related studies and have the nerve to call their conclusions certain.

 

[Wuwei]

As you say, Trenberth's diagram has subtractions of large numbers with systematic or statistical errors larger than the subtracted value itself. I have not looked at AR5 myself, but I have always found it difficult to believe that AGW is based on a number with a large standard deviation. Publishing that diagram should always have the caveat that the numbers are only typical.

It is known that the earth has a bipolar stability. A cold frozen earth has little water vapor, and reflects solar energy so that it stays cold. A hot earth has far more solar absorption and water vapor which allows it to remain hot. It's like trying to balance a light switch half way between off and on. A little nudge one way or another will have a huge effect. Throwing extra GHG's that do not have the same phase changing stabilization effect as water seems dangerous and unpredictable. I'm not so concerned with the numbers as I am about the unpredictability of adding non-water GHG's.

Another problem that I have not seen mentioned (probably because I never looked) is that in the arctic there is little local stabilizing water vapor. It is there that the more evenly spread CO2 and CH4 can have a larger effect that can cause faster melting.

 

[Old Rocks]

could climate science be more fixated on CO2? I dont think so.

Ian, Dr. Alley knows far more on this subject than you do. Here is his presentation to the AGU Conferance.

co2, the big control knob, richard alley, youtube - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results

 

[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'

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover. If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat. Sorry, I don't go for it. Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps. Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt. CO2 is used to put fires out. And yet it can melt ice. Wow. I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one. Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured. In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us. I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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'

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover. If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat. Sorry, I don't go for it. Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps. Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt. CO2 is used to put fires out. And yet it can melt ice. Wow. I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one. Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured. In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us. I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?

If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth

There is more warmth.

Sorry, I don't go for it.

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

CO2 is used to put fires out.

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

 

[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'

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover. If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat. Sorry, I don't go for it. Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps. Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt. CO2 is used to put fires out. And yet it can melt ice. Wow. I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one. Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured. In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us. I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?

If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth

There is more warmth.

Sorry, I don't go for it.

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

CO2 is used to put fires out.

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy? right
What is your explanation for colder temps?
no sun.
There is more warmth
funny
You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?
not more warmth, no.
When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
It's still CO2.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
post one.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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'

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover. If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat. Sorry, I don't go for it. Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps. Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt. CO2 is used to put fires out. And yet it can melt ice. Wow. I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one. Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured. In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us. I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?

If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth

There is more warmth.

Sorry, I don't go for it.

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

CO2 is used to put fires out.

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy? right
What is your explanation for colder temps?
no sun.
There is more warmth
funny
You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?
not more warmth, no.
When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
It's still CO2.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
post one.

What is your explanation for colder temps?

no sun.

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

funny

And true.

not more warmth, no.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

It's still CO2.

CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

post one

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf

 

[jc456]

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

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover. If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat. Sorry, I don't go for it. Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps. Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt. CO2 is used to put fires out. And yet it can melt ice. Wow. I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one. Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured. In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us. I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?

If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth

There is more warmth.

Sorry, I don't go for it.

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

CO2 is used to put fires out.

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy? right
What is your explanation for colder temps?
no sun.
There is more warmth
funny
You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?
not more warmth, no.
When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
It's still CO2.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
post one.

What is your explanation for colder temps?

no sun.

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

funny

And true.

not more warmth, no.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

It's still CO2.

CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

post one

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover. We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
than what?
experiment
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now. I will post once I've looked at it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

ahhhhh. partially consumed fuel that is still hot enough to glow but is no longer producing an open flame?

do you know why people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restart it? because the embers lose less heat next to another ember than they do to the cooler surrounding environment. the same amount of combustion is capable of producing a higher temperature which leads to open flames again. back radiation from ember to ember, less heat loss, higher temperature at the location of the power source (fuel combustion).

why do people wear clothes? the body warms the clothes to a temperature intermediate between the cooler outside environment and the warmer skin. instead of only the smaller amount of environmental back radiation they get the larger amount from their clothes, hence the body needs to burn less food to stay warm.

the Earth's system is similar. the sun heats the surface, which heats the nearby atmosphere, which returns back radiation. this would be true even without greenhouse gases. with GHGs it is like trading a teeshirt for a down jacket. far less radiation escapes directly to space, and the absorbed radiation warms the atmosphere, which then produces more backradiation.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating? more CO2 is like having more down in your jacket but water is like opening and closing the zipper according to how hot you feel. if it's too hot evaporation cools the surface, convection pumps it away, and the resulting clouds shade the incoming sunlight. the water cycle removes about 100/165 of the surface solar input, direct escape to space through IR bands not absorbed by the atmosphere removes another 40/165. the last 25/165 of surface solar input leaves as radiation pinballing through the GHGs. CO2 is claimed to be somewhere between 5-25% of the greenhouse effect. there have probably been 5-10 doublings of CO2 from the initial bolus.

25W x 25% x 1/5 adds up to a rounding error. easily lost in the water cycle system.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover. If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat. Sorry, I don't go for it. Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps. Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt. CO2 is used to put fires out. And yet it can melt ice. Wow. I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one. Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured. In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us. I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?

If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth

There is more warmth.

Sorry, I don't go for it.

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

CO2 is used to put fires out.

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy? right
What is your explanation for colder temps?
no sun.
There is more warmth
funny
You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?
not more warmth, no.
When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
It's still CO2.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
post one.

What is your explanation for colder temps?

no sun.

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

funny

And true.

not more warmth, no.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

It's still CO2.

CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

post one

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover. We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
than what?
experiment
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now. I will post once I've looked at it.

yep and aren't considered in GHGs.

Water vapor is a GHG.

in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover

AGWers have crappy models. That doesn't stop water vapor from absorbing and emitting energy.

We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann as you've admitted.....and denied.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

than what?

Than no cloud cover.

 

[Wuwei]

Ian, Dr. Alley knows far more on this subject than you do. Here is his presentation to the AGU Conferance.

co2, the big control knob, richard alley, youtube - Yahoo Search Results Yahoo Search Results

I just finished listening to the entire one hour presentation by Richard Alley. It was fast moving. He is a very expressive speaker. He clarified many questions that are brought up in this forum, and of course he addressed them without the naivety you would see here. He was also objective enough to admit where there were inconsistencies in proxy data, and how they were addressed and cross-related.

Also he talked about "old rocks". Thank you for the reference.

 

[skookerasbil]

First of all............ these predictions are based upon computer models that historically are frequently inaccurate, plus, they are frequently prepared using data that has been rigged. ( see threads on NOAA and NASA data rigging in this forum )

Secondly........weve been seeing threads like this from the AGW k00ks for years DESPITE the fact that there has been zero warming now for over 18 years!!!

They just throw this stuff out there hoping to dupe the suckers who don't check the facts......

 

[jc456]

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover. If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth, and if there is warmth from GHGs then the warmer deniers are right, the more CO2 the more heat. Sorry, I don't go for it. Again, none of it explains the nighttime temps. Wuwe just stated that the arctic sees more CO2 hence will have more ice melt. CO2 is used to put fires out. And yet it can melt ice. Wow. I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one. Now water vapor, there you go, humidity can be measured. In fact, in the summertime we have a temperature humidity index that will show how much warmer humidity can make the air around us. I'm still waiting on the magic CO2 index.

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?

If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth

There is more warmth.

Sorry, I don't go for it.

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

CO2 is used to put fires out.

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy? right
What is your explanation for colder temps?
no sun.
There is more warmth
funny
You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?
not more warmth, no.
When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
It's still CO2.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
post one.

What is your explanation for colder temps?

no sun.

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

funny

And true.

not more warmth, no.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

It's still CO2.

CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

post one

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover. We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
than what?
experiment
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now. I will post once I've looked at it.

yep and aren't considered in GHGs.

Water vapor is a GHG.

in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover

AGWers have crappy models. That doesn't stop water vapor from absorbing and emitting energy.

We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann as you've admitted.....and denied.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

than what?

Than no cloud cover.

Water vapor is a GHG.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.


AGWers have crappy models.
yes they do and they don't include clouds. And most of the planet is always under a cloud on a daily basis. It's why we have water.

Than no cloud cover
Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are. I laugh at this sht.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ian, I appreciate all your effort, but it still doesn't explain why it's colder at night with no cloud cover.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy?
What is your explanation for colder temps?

If there is back radiation from any GH gas then there has to be more warmth

There is more warmth.

Sorry, I don't go for it.

You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?

CO2 is used to put fires out.

When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

I don't understand with all these glaring pronouncements that there isn't one experiment that validates any of them. not one.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy? right
What is your explanation for colder temps?
no sun.
There is more warmth
funny
You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?
not more warmth, no.
When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
It's still CO2.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
post one.

What is your explanation for colder temps?

no sun.

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

funny

And true.

not more warmth, no.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

It's still CO2.

CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

post one

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover. We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
than what?
experiment
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now. I will post once I've looked at it.

yep and aren't considered in GHGs.

Water vapor is a GHG.

in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover

AGWers have crappy models. That doesn't stop water vapor from absorbing and emitting energy.

We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann as you've admitted.....and denied.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

than what?

Than no cloud cover.

Water vapor is a GHG.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.


AGWers have crappy models.
yes they do and they don't include clouds. And most of the planet is always under a cloud on a daily basis. It's why we have water.

Than no cloud cover
Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are. I laugh at this sht.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.

yes they do and they don't include clouds

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.

Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are.

Clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere both absorb energy emitted from the ground and emit a portion back to the Earth's surface. That's back radiation. It happens, it keeps the planet warmer than it would be without water vapor in the atmosphere.

 

[jc456]

Colder with no cloud cover doesn't help show that GHGs absorb and re-emit energy? right
What is your explanation for colder temps?
no sun.
There is more warmth
funny
You don't go for all matter above 0K radiating?
not more warmth, no.
When CO2 displaces oxygen, it puts out fires. That has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.
It's still CO2.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
post one.

What is your explanation for colder temps?

no sun.

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

funny

And true.

not more warmth, no.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

It's still CO2.

CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

post one

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover. We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
than what?
experiment
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now. I will post once I've looked at it.

yep and aren't considered in GHGs.

Water vapor is a GHG.

in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover

AGWers have crappy models. That doesn't stop water vapor from absorbing and emitting energy.

We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann as you've admitted.....and denied.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

than what?

Than no cloud cover.

Water vapor is a GHG.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.


AGWers have crappy models.
yes they do and they don't include clouds. And most of the planet is always under a cloud on a daily basis. It's why we have water.

Than no cloud cover
Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are. I laugh at this sht.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.

yes they do and they don't include clouds

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.

Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are.

Clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere both absorb energy emitted from the ground and emit a portion back to the Earth's surface. That's back radiation. It happens, it keeps the planet warmer than it would be without water vapor in the atmosphere.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.
Cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets or frozen crystals, both of which are made of water or various chemicals. The droplets or particles are suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of a planetary body.[1] On Earth clouds are formed by the saturation of air in the homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere) when air cools or gains water vapor. The science of clouds is nephology which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology."

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.
and clouds are not figured into any model, and back radiation does not exist.

CO2

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is your explanation for colder temps?

no sun.

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.

funny

And true.

not more warmth, no.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

It's still CO2.

CO2 doesn't help combustion.

Plenty of experiments have validated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law

post one

http://www.nikhef.nl/~h73/kn1c/praktikum/phywe/LEP/Experim/3_5_01.pdf

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover. We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
than what?
experiment
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now. I will post once I've looked at it.

yep and aren't considered in GHGs.

Water vapor is a GHG.

in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover

AGWers have crappy models. That doesn't stop water vapor from absorbing and emitting energy.

We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann as you've admitted.....and denied.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

than what?

Than no cloud cover.

Water vapor is a GHG.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.


AGWers have crappy models.
yes they do and they don't include clouds. And most of the planet is always under a cloud on a daily basis. It's why we have water.

Than no cloud cover
Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are. I laugh at this sht.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.

yes they do and they don't include clouds

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.

Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are.

Clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere both absorb energy emitted from the ground and emit a portion back to the Earth's surface. That's back radiation. It happens, it keeps the planet warmer than it would be without water vapor in the atmosphere.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.
Cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets or frozen crystals, both of which are made of water or various chemicals. The droplets or particles are suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of a planetary body.[1] On Earth clouds are formed by the saturation of air in the homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere) when air cools or gains water vapor. The science of clouds is nephology which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology."

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.
and clouds are not figured into any model, and back radiation does not exist.

CO2

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory."

and back radiation does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

It works better as an explanation than your claim that energy from GHGs doesn't get emitted toward the ground.

 

[jc456]

There is also no sun in the areas with cloud cover at night.
yep and aren't considered in GHGs. in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover. We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.
Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.
than what?
experiment
I'll be looking at the experiment later, have to work right now. I will post once I've looked at it.

yep and aren't considered in GHGs.

Water vapor is a GHG.

in fact, they are still trying to figure out the affect of cloud cover

AGWers have crappy models. That doesn't stop water vapor from absorbing and emitting energy.

We know by observation that clouds hold in warmth. Fact that is observed.

Yes, Stefan-Boltzmann as you've admitted.....and denied.

Yes, cloud cover keeps it warmer.

than what?

Than no cloud cover.

Water vapor is a GHG.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.


AGWers have crappy models.
yes they do and they don't include clouds. And most of the planet is always under a cloud on a daily basis. It's why we have water.

Than no cloud cover
Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are. I laugh at this sht.

Yes it is, but water vapor isn't a cloud and I referenced a cloud. A cloud is not GHG and what I stated.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.

yes they do and they don't include clouds

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.

Funny, not added warmth to the surface merely what the surface temps are.

Clouds and water vapor in the atmosphere both absorb energy emitted from the ground and emit a portion back to the Earth's surface. That's back radiation. It happens, it keeps the planet warmer than it would be without water vapor in the atmosphere.

Water vapor, in a cloud or not, is a greenhouse gas.
Cloud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In meteorology, a cloud is an aerosol comprising a visible mass of minute liquid droplets or frozen crystals, both of which are made of water or various chemicals. The droplets or particles are suspended in the atmosphere above the surface of a planetary body.[1] On Earth clouds are formed by the saturation of air in the homosphere (which includes the troposphere, stratosphere, and mesosphere) when air cools or gains water vapor. The science of clouds is nephology which is undertaken in the cloud physics branch of meteorology."

Cool. Has nothing to do with your confusion about matter emitting energy.
and clouds are not figured into any model, and back radiation does not exist.

CO2

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation

The hypothesis of the "greenhouse effect" despite being more than 150 years old has never and will never achieve the status of a testable theory."

and back radiation does not exist.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

"The so called "Greenhouse effect" is just an hypothesis.

It works better as an explanation than your claim that energy from GHGs doesn't get emitted toward the ground.

Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere absorb energy emitted from the ground and don't emit back toward the ground? Why not?

Because the surface would get warmer if it did.