Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Toddsterpatriot]

it does, then prove how it does. your experiment didn't

They graphed the data. That's not proof enough?

I said it doesn't make it to the surface

Why not? Magic force field stop it?

You know a photon radiating up won't "crash into" and stop a photon radiating down, right?

They graphed the data. That's not proof enough?
no, it didn't confirm anything about back radiation.

You know a photon radiating up won't "crash into" and stop a photon radiating down, right?

it gets absorbed by other CO2 going up since that is the direction it must go as the temperature decreases in the atmosphere.

no, it didn't confirm anything about back radiation.

It confirmed the SB Law. If you don't know how that confirms back radiation..........

it gets absorbed by other CO2 going up

A photon traveling Earthward is always absorbed by CO2? Why? Link?

since that is the direction it must go as the temperature decreases in the atmosphere.

A photon has to travel up? Why? How does it know which way is up?

A photon has to travel up? Why? How does it know which way is up?

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.

It confirmed the SB Law. If you don't know how that confirms back radiation........

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased.

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.

It doesn't matter if the CO2 is moving up, down, or sideways, when it emits a photon, the photon can move in any direction, even toward the warmer ground.

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased

Yes, it showed that the hotter an object is, the more energy it radiates. That's the SB Law, the one you agree with and then disagree with.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

What is incorrect? Be specific.

 

[jc456]

They graphed the data. That's not proof enough?
no, it didn't confirm anything about back radiation.

You know a photon radiating up won't "crash into" and stop a photon radiating down, right?

it gets absorbed by other CO2 going up since that is the direction it must go as the temperature decreases in the atmosphere.

no, it didn't confirm anything about back radiation.

It confirmed the SB Law. If you don't know how that confirms back radiation..........

it gets absorbed by other CO2 going up

A photon traveling Earthward is always absorbed by CO2? Why? Link?

since that is the direction it must go as the temperature decreases in the atmosphere.

A photon has to travel up? Why? How does it know which way is up?

A photon has to travel up? Why? How does it know which way is up?

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.

It confirmed the SB Law. If you don't know how that confirms back radiation........

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased.

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.

It doesn't matter if the CO2 is moving up, down, or sideways, when it emits a photon, the photon can move in any direction, even toward the warmer ground.

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased

Yes, it showed that the hotter an object is, the more energy it radiates. That's the SB Law, the one you agree with and then disagree with.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

What is incorrect? Be specific.

I used the ember for a from reason.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no, it didn't confirm anything about back radiation.

It confirmed the SB Law. If you don't know how that confirms back radiation..........

it gets absorbed by other CO2 going up

A photon traveling Earthward is always absorbed by CO2? Why? Link?

since that is the direction it must go as the temperature decreases in the atmosphere.

A photon has to travel up? Why? How does it know which way is up?

A photon has to travel up? Why? How does it know which way is up?

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.

It confirmed the SB Law. If you don't know how that confirms back radiation........

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased.

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.

It doesn't matter if the CO2 is moving up, down, or sideways, when it emits a photon, the photon can move in any direction, even toward the warmer ground.

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased

Yes, it showed that the hotter an object is, the more energy it radiates. That's the SB Law, the one you agree with and then disagree with.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

What is incorrect? Be specific.

I used the ember for a from reason.

What reason?

 

[jc456]

A photon has to travel up? Why? How does it know which way is up?

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.

It confirmed the SB Law. If you don't know how that confirms back radiation........

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased.

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.

It doesn't matter if the CO2 is moving up, down, or sideways, when it emits a photon, the photon can move in any direction, even toward the warmer ground.

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased

Yes, it showed that the hotter an object is, the more energy it radiates. That's the SB Law, the one you agree with and then disagree with.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

What is incorrect? Be specific.

I used the ember for a from reason.

What reason?

I'm unclear what you don't understand? If something is hot and it gets hotter it will be hotter. Ever hear of steel and a blacksmith. They get steel extremely hot to what? Dude you're lost.

By the way, it still doesn't explain back radiation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That was for CO2 traveling up due to the change in temperature going up.

It doesn't matter if the CO2 is moving up, down, or sideways, when it emits a photon, the photon can move in any direction, even toward the warmer ground.

All it proved was a light radiating, nothing else and the change as source power was increased

Yes, it showed that the hotter an object is, the more energy it radiates. That's the SB Law, the one you agree with and then disagree with.

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

What is incorrect? Be specific.

I used the ember for a from reason.

What reason?

I'm unclear what you don't understand? If something is hot and it gets hotter it will be hotter. Ever hear of steel and a blacksmith. They get steel extremely hot to what? Dude you're lost.

By the way, it still doesn't explain back radiation.

If something is hot and it gets hotter it will be hotter.

Derp.

 

[jc456]

Sorry, but that is incorrect.

What is incorrect? Be specific.

I used the ember for a from reason.

What reason?

I'm unclear what you don't understand? If something is hot and it gets hotter it will be hotter. Ever hear of steel and a blacksmith. They get steel extremely hot to what? Dude you're lost.

By the way, it still doesn't explain back radiation.

If something is hot and it gets hotter it will be hotter.

Derp.

Yes indeed, Derp. WOW son

Still your point is lost. No back radiation

 

[Crick]

a hot spot would be needed if it were happening indeed. again energy creates heat.

A hot spot is not needed for the 70 degree walls in my house to radiate back to my 98 degree skin.

how do painted walls absorb? heat mingles around due to air movement in the house. your walls no more absorb like your windows. The heat should never come on again once equilibrium is present then. Right? LOL

how do painted walls absorb?

Matter absorbs energy. It's basic physics.

no that's not correct, some objects don't have the ability to absorb. try again.

What objects can not absorb the radiation from the sun?

Perfect reflectors.

 

[Wuwei]

For the last 80 posts Popeye has been toying with you. He really isn't interested in the science. He just wants to mess with your minds.

 

[Crick]

Popeye? Where are his posts? I see nothing here but several pages of Todd.

 

[Wuwei]

Popeye? Where are his posts? I see nothing here but several pages of Todd.

LOL. I read it for entertainment only, but it's getting stale. Maybe I should use ignore too.
Here are my favorite words of wisdom from Popeye:
If something is hot and it gets hotter it will be hotter.

 

[IanC]

I have had several conversations with Doug Cotton in the past over thermodynamic issues. He is very similar to SSDD in his beliefs and debating style.

Cotton also denies the Greenhouse Effect but has more sophisticated math to back up his position. There is a glaring flaw in both Cotton's and SSDD's reasoning.

They ignore past energy flows and only look at equilibrium conditions.

I have been calling it a 'heat sink' because I don't know the proper terminology. It's not the first time I have simply given a name to an obvious physical principle but it does cause difficulties in getting my point across.

Eg. An oven only works properly after it has been preheated. The initial energy is used to warm up all the components, very little is lost to the environment. At equilibrium (the cooking temp) as much energy being used to maintain the temp is being lost to the environment. After the power is turned off the oven continues to lose energy until it is once again at room temperature.

On Earth massive amounts of energy have been stored in many components. The atmosphere and it's circulation, the oceans and their currents, etc. This stored energy is the confounding factor in why people don't understand the Greenhouse Effect. This is why the surface radiates 400w while only receiving 165w of solar input.

The insulating properties of the atmosphere etc can change the equilibrium temperature at any point of the system from top of the atmosphere solar input, to TOA IR output, which is always very close to equal, especially over long periods of time.

Unlike an oven, the Earth is always 'on'. That does not mean we can ignore the stored energy in its systems. Without solar input the atmosphere would just be a frozen crust on the surface. Imagine how much energy is stored in the kenetic and potential energies just in the atmosphere. The sunlit side of the atmosphere 'puffs up' several kilometers every day, only to relax again during night.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For the last 80 posts Popeye has been toying with you. He really isn't interested in the science. He just wants to mess with your minds.

I don't know why I bother digging, I guess I'm just curious to see how deep the stupid goes.

I'm thinking, all the way down.........

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, Todd, you are completely correct. jc, Silly Billy, Frankie Boi, and the rest simply deny science. And when you point out that the science you are quoting comes directly from all the physics and chemistry texts of the last 50 years, at least, they will calmly state those texts are written by a bunch of lying liberals. You cannot change such minds, you can only put out the correct information, and where to find it, for those that might not realize the stupidity of what they are claiming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well now, Todd, you are completely correct. jc, Silly Billy, Frankie Boi, and the rest simply deny science. And when you point out that the science you are quoting comes directly from all the physics and chemistry texts of the last 50 years, at least, they will calmly state those texts are written by a bunch of lying liberals. You cannot change such minds, you can only put out the correct information, and where to find it, for those that might not realize the stupidity of what they are claiming.

JC and SSDD are confused about the science.
In their defense, they aren't pushing for trillions in wasteful spending based on weak evidence/bad math.

 

[Old Rocks]

Trillions in spending? Where? Buying the generation that has the least effect on the environment for a better price than the generation that has the most effect on the environment is spending trillions on wasteful spending?

Back up your figures, Todd. What trillions where?

From 2012;

Over 770,000 homes weatherized. A doubling of energy from wind and solar. Cleaning 688 square miles of land formerly used for Cold War-era nuclear testing.
These are just some of the 'green' benefits from money spent under 2009's $787 billion stimulus package. Whether it was worth it is an open question, and one sure to come up with greater frequency as the presidential campaign enters its final weeks.


Tallying just how much cash went to green projects isn't easy. The government website thattracks stimulus spending lists 27,226 individual awards under the "Energy/ Environment" section, totaling just shy of $34 billion.

But that doesn't include things like high speed rail and smart meters, which lie among the 43,000-plus "infrastructure" awards.

In a report earlier this year, the Brookings Institution put green stimulus spending at $51 billion. From 2009 to 2014, Brookings estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives.

Related: 9 divisive energy issues for the election

What we got for $50 billion in 'green' stimulus

I am not seeing trillions here.

 

[Wuwei]

I have had several conversations with Doug Cotton in the past over thermodynamic issues. He is very similar to SSDD in his beliefs and debating style.

Cotton also denies the Greenhouse Effect but has more sophisticated math to back up his position. There is a glaring flaw in both Cotton's and SSDD's reasoning.

They ignore past energy flows and only look at equilibrium conditions.

I have been calling it a 'heat sink' because I don't know the proper terminology. It's not the first time I have simply given a name to an obvious physical principle but it does cause difficulties in getting my point across.

Eg. An oven only works properly after it has been preheated. The initial energy is used to warm up all the components, very little is lost to the environment. At equilibrium (the cooking temp) as much energy being used to maintain the temp is being lost to the environment. After the power is turned off the oven continues to lose energy until it is once again at room temperature.

On Earth massive amounts of energy have been stored in many components. The atmosphere and it's circulation, the oceans and their currents, etc. This stored energy is the confounding factor in why people don't understand the Greenhouse Effect. This is why the surface radiates 400w while only receiving 165w of solar input.

The insulating properties of the atmosphere etc can change the equilibrium temperature at any point of the system from top of the atmosphere solar input, to TOA IR output, which is always very close to equal, especially over long periods of time.

Unlike an oven, the Earth is always 'on'. That does not mean we can ignore the stored energy in its systems. Without solar input the atmosphere would just be a frozen crust on the surface. Imagine how much energy is stored in the kenetic and potential energies just in the atmosphere. The sunlit side of the atmosphere 'puffs up' several kilometers every day, only to relax again during night.

Heat sink is probably a good way of stating it, although a heat sink is more for dissipation of heat rather than storage. "Thermal inertia" is what is often used. One great example of thermal inertia is in the seasons. The temperature cycle has a significant phase lag from the equinox or solstice.

 

[Old Rocks]

What Types of Energy-Related Tax Preferences Does the Government Provide, and How Has the Value and Composition of that Financial Support Changed Over Time?
Tax preferences for energy production were first established in 1916, and until 2005, they were primarily intended to stimulate domestic production of oil and natural gas. With the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, energy-related tax preferences grew substantially, and an increasing share of them were aimed at encouraging energy efficiency and energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and the sun. Although tax preferences for fossil fuels continued to make up the bulk of all energy-related tax incentives through 2007, by the end of 2008, fossil fuels accounted for only a third of the total cost of energy-related tax incentives (see the figure below).

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 expanded and extended provisions related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA, further expanded tax preferences for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and alternative vehicles. As a result, in 2011, provisions aimed at energy efficiency and renewable energy accounted for 78 percent—or about $16 billion—of the estimated budgetary cost of federal energy-related tax preferences.

How Much Does the Federal Government Support the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy Technologies?

Trillion?

 

[Wuwei]

For the last 80 posts Popeye has been toying with you. He really isn't interested in the science. He just wants to mess with your minds.

I don't know why I bother digging, I guess I'm just curious to see how deep the stupid goes.

I'm thinking, all the way down.........

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's sort of like being riveted to watching a cat vomit.
"All the way down" seems to be an abyss.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trillions in spending? Where? Buying the generation that has the least effect on the environment for a better price than the generation that has the most effect on the environment is spending trillions on wasteful spending?

Back up your figures, Todd. What trillions where?

From 2012;

Over 770,000 homes weatherized. A doubling of energy from wind and solar. Cleaning 688 square miles of land formerly used for Cold War-era nuclear testing.
These are just some of the 'green' benefits from money spent under 2009's $787 billion stimulus package. Whether it was worth it is an open question, and one sure to come up with greater frequency as the presidential campaign enters its final weeks.


Tallying just how much cash went to green projects isn't easy. The government website thattracks stimulus spending lists 27,226 individual awards under the "Energy/ Environment" section, totaling just shy of $34 billion.

But that doesn't include things like high speed rail and smart meters, which lie among the 43,000-plus "infrastructure" awards.

In a report earlier this year, the Brookings Institution put green stimulus spending at $51 billion. From 2009 to 2014, Brookings estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives.

Related: 9 divisive energy issues for the election

What we got for $50 billion in 'green' stimulus

I am not seeing trillions here.

$76 Trillion to Engineer a Green Economy?

 

[IanC]

I have had several conversations with Doug Cotton in the past over thermodynamic issues. He is very similar to SSDD in his beliefs and debating style.

Cotton also denies the Greenhouse Effect but has more sophisticated math to back up his position. There is a glaring flaw in both Cotton's and SSDD's reasoning.

They ignore past energy flows and only look at equilibrium conditions.

I have been calling it a 'heat sink' because I don't know the proper terminology. It's not the first time I have simply given a name to an obvious physical principle but it does cause difficulties in getting my point across.

Eg. An oven only works properly after it has been preheated. The initial energy is used to warm up all the components, very little is lost to the environment. At equilibrium (the cooking temp) as much energy being used to maintain the temp is being lost to the environment. After the power is turned off the oven continues to lose energy until it is once again at room temperature.

On Earth massive amounts of energy have been stored in many components. The atmosphere and it's circulation, the oceans and their currents, etc. This stored energy is the confounding factor in why people don't understand the Greenhouse Effect. This is why the surface radiates 400w while only receiving 165w of solar input.

The insulating properties of the atmosphere etc can change the equilibrium temperature at any point of the system from top of the atmosphere solar input, to TOA IR output, which is always very close to equal, especially over long periods of time.

Unlike an oven, the Earth is always 'on'. That does not mean we can ignore the stored energy in its systems. Without solar input the atmosphere would just be a frozen crust on the surface. Imagine how much energy is stored in the kenetic and potential energies just in the atmosphere. The sunlit side of the atmosphere 'puffs up' several kilometers every day, only to relax again during night.

Heat sink is probably a good way of stating it, although a heat sink is more for dissipation of heat rather than storage. "Thermal inertia" is what is often used. One great example of thermal inertia is in the seasons. The temperature cycle has a significant phase lag from the equinox or solstice.

Thanks. But I don't think thermal inertia quite covers it. It is the mechanism by which a higher level of effectiveness can be attained by a smaller input. I'm decades out of my last physics class but the general principles remain, and usually steer me in the right direction. I am also quick to relinquish a position if I find a better path or someone points it out.