Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[frigidweirdo]

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).

Guess you never tended a fire....people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restrict airflow...less oxygen, less burning...therefore you have coals in the morning to restart your fire.... there is no back radiation happening there...think of another reason...

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.

No Ian...the body warms the air space between the skin and the clothes....pull the clothes tight to the skin and you won't get warm...no back radiation there either...think of something else.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating?

You aren't a skeptic...you are a believer who just believes the magic isn't as strong as the core of the church...you are one of the guys who sits in the back pews...or maybe the balcony so you can get out early after the service is over.

You know I didn't write this, and if you click back to the post that you linked to this, it doesn't say any of this. Confused.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.

But the same happens on the other side too.

The problem is that those who believe there is no man made climate change seem to say if one person slightly exaggerates, or slightly misleads, then the whole thing is a myth and made up and all of that.

Again, ridiculous, it would imply that lying has the ability to stop man made global warming.

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

 

[IanC]

this is a great story to illustrate what has been going on in climate science for quite some time now...

a new methodology is developed in the model for determining ice thickness, and as usual 'things are worse than we thought'. the new data are publicized and the old data disappears down the memory hole (in this case even the wayback machine has been disabled).

I am obviously not qualified to determine which method is superior, or even if one is superior to the other. but it seems odd that all the changes seem to be in the direction of exacerbating the description of climate change. and then making the old data difficult or impossible to access.

It's called science. To test if a model works, you have to have a hypothesis, use the data available, see if it works. If it doesn't then you try and tweak it and see if that works.

The biggest problem is when people get hold of PREDICTIONS and determine that this is somehow sacred and that if it's wrong then the people who made the predictions are somehow liars and idiots, when if fact it's the people who are reading the predictions as FACT that have the problem.

WELL DONE!! It's the first time that I can remember you posting up anything interesting.

What you said obviously has a lot of truth to it. Is it in context though?

Most people have neither the time, inclination or ability to understand climate science and decipher the predictions broadcast by the media. They simply add up all that they hear and make a rough average and consider that to be close to the truth. So the type and quantity of publicized predictions is important.

Next, what kind of predictions get publicized? Forecasts of Doom sells, uncertainty and continuation of the status quo do not. Prediction of 30 meters of sea level rise from a glacier melting is newsworthy and interesting. Prediction of sea level rise for the next hundred years being very similar to the last hundred years, is not. One scenario is impossible and the other is likely.

Next, who makes the predictions? Scientists for the most part. Why would they make or emphasise alarming forecasts? A few things to consider. CYA (cover your ass). There are no penalties for hyping bad but unlikely outcomes. But no one wants to get blamed if something does go seriously wrong and they said it wasn't likely. Status. Scientists who are recognized and quoted for predictions of Doom also get the high road to more funding and are called on by the media for their opinions. A positive feedback, to use the vernacular.

Should we blame the media for broadcasting unlikely scenarios, the scientists who allow the unlikely scenarios to be clipped out of their work without putting it in context, or the layman who believes what he is told because he is too ignorant to know better?

Often scientists will say there is a margin of error. You can see charts which show many different possibilities, but the media will take the most sensational and say "Scientists say this could happen" then read changes "could" to "will".

Often the people who read stuff, simply get taken in because they can't connect English words with what they actually mean.

Fair enough, but often the scientists are quite happy to be misconstrued. For example, Marcott spent a week on the publicity tour talking about how his new Hockeystick showed warmer recent temps but when he was pointedly questioned, he admitted that his work had no significance after 1900. Why did he not point this out to reporters? Why was he happy to go along with 'Forecast of Doom' stories? The original stories made the news, the retraction did not.

Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.

But the same happens on the other side too.

The problem is that those who believe there is no man made climate change seem to say if one person slightly exaggerates, or slightly misleads, then the whole thing is a myth and made up and all of that.

Again, ridiculous, it would imply that lying has the ability to stop man made global warming.

Do you even know what the mainline skeptical position is? It is AGW lite vs CAGW. No skeptical scientists like Curry or Lindzen are saying the Greenhouse Effect isn't real. They are saying the effect is real but exaggerated positive feedbacks are not. 1C warming per 2xCO2 is not going to cause calamity. In the last five years the climate sensitivity has continued to drop from 3C, and seems to be converging to roughly 1C. Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.

You say exaggerations and misdirections don't disprove the basic theory. We're not disputing the basic theory. We're pointing out the exaggerations and flaws that lead to misdirection. Science is supposed to be scrupulous. Allowing mistakes to continue after they have been pointed out is the true anti-science.

 

[SSDD]

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

No actual evidence....no.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

Are you suggesting that the atmosphere and climate are not observable, measurable, quantifiable entities?....doesn't it strike you odd that there would be no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW considering that both the climate and atmosphere are observable, measurable, and quantifiable?

You just don't like people asking for actual evidence which does not exist.

 

[SSDD]

Do you even know what the mainline skeptical position is? It is AGW lite vs CAGW. No skeptical scientists like Curry or Lindzen are saying the Greenhouse Effect isn't real. They are saying the effect is real but exaggerated positive feedbacks are not. 1C warming per 2xCO2 is not going to cause calamity. In the last five years the climate sensitivity has continued to drop from 3C, and seems to be converging to roughly 1C. Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.

You say exaggerations and misdirections don't disprove the basic theory. We're not disputing the basic theory. We're pointing out the exaggerations and flaws that lead to misdirection. Science is supposed to be scrupulous. Allowing mistakes to continue after they have been pointed out is the true anti-science.

The greenhouse hypothesis can not even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...it can't even come close with other planets...it isn't a valid hypothesis...and if science is actual scrupulous, how does a hypothesis become accepted if it requires a fudge factor to even predict the temperature here?

 

[IanC]

How to teach a group of people why "back radiation" is a poor term and deceptive?

First lets look at the the basic molecules and their properties..

CO2: One Carbon molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules.

The combined molecules do not react to LWIR photons. They absorb and re-emit these photon in 1-3 nanoseconds. The molecule can not retain heat and does not become excited when it absorbs photons.

H2O; One Hydrogen molecule and 2 Oxygen molecules,

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons. It warms the molecule and can retain that heat for a time without re-emitting the photon. As the molecule cools the emitted photons wave length increases in length (as evidenced by the increased output wave lengths from water vapor)


The alarmists claim that back radiation will force energy back to the earth. This is actually the residency time of the energy in near surface molecules and slowed rise of heat from the earth. In the desert, in low humidity (water vapor) the temperature swing is 60-80 deg F daily showing that the water vapor directly above the surface is responsible for the slowing of the heat rise. CO2 has no effect on the deserts higher ground temps and CO2 not only can not hold heat, it can not re-emit enough, ground ward, to combat the loss.

While the atmosphere may indeed be re-emitting photons towards the ground it is incapable of holding the heat and the LWIR escapes to space rapidly.

Water vapor is the key to the system. In low convective cycles the day time temps use conduction near ground level to hold heat. at night however that conduction stops and convection releases the heat to space. Again the LWIR, from rising black body ground heat, is very minutely returned by CO2 re-emittance towards the ground and in insufficient volumes to warm the water vapor in the air.

The whole CO2 meme is total bull shit and has been from day one. Back radiation is just one more ambiguous term that means exactly squat.

Billybob is back to bafflegab again. Hahahaha.

One thing I would like to point out is that at STP for the surface, the re-emission time for an excited CO2 molecule is roughly ten times longer than the time between molecular collisions. The energy used to excite the molecule is more likely to be converted into general energy, of which the kinetic portion is known as temperature.

Billybob's post is so full of mistakes it is hard to believe he has taken even high school science classes.

 

[IanC]

Do you even know what the mainline skeptical position is? It is AGW lite vs CAGW. No skeptical scientists like Curry or Lindzen are saying the Greenhouse Effect isn't real. They are saying the effect is real but exaggerated positive feedbacks are not. 1C warming per 2xCO2 is not going to cause calamity. In the last five years the climate sensitivity has continued to drop from 3C, and seems to be converging to roughly 1C. Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.

You say exaggerations and misdirections don't disprove the basic theory. We're not disputing the basic theory. We're pointing out the exaggerations and flaws that lead to misdirection. Science is supposed to be scrupulous. Allowing mistakes to continue after they have been pointed out is the true anti-science.

The greenhouse hypothesis can not even predict the temperature of earth without a fudge factor...it can't even come close with other planets...it isn't a valid hypothesis...and if science is actual scrupulous, how does a hypothesis become accepted if it requires a fudge factor to even predict the temperature here?

I have asked you multiple times in the past to explain your position and debate the points. You refused then and I expect you will refuse now.

I have read the articles that you get your talking points from and find them to be mostly exercises in line fitting, although I have brought up the fact that atmospheres are a function of solar (and sometimes to a lesser degree geothermal and gravity tide) input. Solar defines the general range, composition refines it, especially the thermal gradient from surface to TOA.

 

[mamooth]

. Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.

The Bates paper. The author couldn't get it past review at a mainstream journal, so he went journal-hunting until he found a small unknown journal, not related to climate, with a lazy editor. The Bates paper is based on the really bad Lindzen and Choi (2011) paper that had to be sneaked into an unknown Korean journal. So, garbage in, garbage out. Here's Dessler from 2013 taking down what Bates put in his latest paper.

Dropbox - BatesResponse.docx

 

[IanC]

. Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.

The Bates paper. The author couldn't get it past review at a mainstream journal, so he went journal-hunting until he found a small unknown journal, not related to climate, with a lazy editor. The Bates paper is based on the really bad Lindzen and Choi (2011) paper that had to be sneaked into an unknown Korean journal. So, garbage in, garbage out. Here's Dessler from 2013 taking down what Bates put in his latest paper.

Dropbox - BatesResponse.docx

Sorry, my phone doesn't handle that format.

So what you are saying is that only 'approved' peer review, by 'approved' scientists is acceptable. I seem to remember quite a few of the climategate emails discussing that very topic. Perhaps the climate science echelon can get the editor of this journal fired for accepting an unwelcome paper, as they have done multiple times in the past.

 

[IanC]

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).

Guess you never tended a fire....people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restrict airflow...less oxygen, less burning...therefore you have coals in the morning to restart your fire.... there is no back radiation happening there...think of another reason...

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.

No Ian...the body warms the air space between the skin and the clothes....pull the clothes tight to the skin and you won't get warm...no back radiation there either...think of something else.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating?

You aren't a skeptic...you are a believer who just believes the magic isn't as strong as the core of the church...you are one of the guys who sits in the back pews...or maybe the balcony so you can get out early after the service is over.

My guess is that you are being obtuse about campfires.

Campfires die out because the fuel has been mostly spent and the heat is no longer high enough to promote open flames without more fuel or more oxygen. To put out a fire you simply spread out the embers and the increased heat loss stops the reaction.

Your digression into 'laying to' a campfire, with lots of fuel but limited access to oxygen is a skillful art that often just results in a delayed bonfire when the bulk fuel warms to the ignition point.

 

[SSDD]

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).

Guess you never tended a fire....people push the embers of a dying campfire together to restrict airflow...less oxygen, less burning...therefore you have coals in the morning to restart your fire.... there is no back radiation happening there...think of another reason...

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.

No Ian...the body warms the air space between the skin and the clothes....pull the clothes tight to the skin and you won't get warm...no back radiation there either...think of something else.

why am I a skeptic who doesnt believe more CO2 will cause a runaway heating?

You aren't a skeptic...you are a believer who just believes the magic isn't as strong as the core of the church...you are one of the guys who sits in the back pews...or maybe the balcony so you can get out early after the service is over.

My guess is that you are being obtuse about campfires.

Campfires die out because the fuel has been mostly spent and the heat is no longer high enough to promote open flames without more fuel or more oxygen. To put out a fire you simply spread out the embers and the increased heat loss stops the reaction.

Your digression into 'laying to' a campfire, with lots of fuel but limited access to oxygen is a skillful art that often just results in a delayed bonfire when the bulk fuel warms to the ignition point.

Believe on Garth...

 

[Markle]

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.

IF, the "Perfect Reflector" could not absorb energy, it would be as cold as outer space.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Slaver Stasis Fields

 

[Markle]

Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents

Correction: Khalil Shalabi said was that 1,295 megawatts were priced below the Recurrent solar deal from last year, which was under 5 cents per kilowatt-hour not under 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

A lot more cheap solar is coming for Austin, Texas.

The city's utility, Austin Energy, just released new data on developer bids for PV projects as part of a 600-megawatt procurement. The numbers show how far solar prices have come down over the last year -- and will continue to drop.

According to Khalil Shalabi, Austin Energy's vice president of resource planning, the utility received offers for 7,976 megawatts of projects after issuing a request for bids in April. Out of those bids, 1,295 megawatts of projects were priced below 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.

"The technology is getting better and the prices are decreasing with time," said Shalabi during a presentation in front of the Austin city council last week.

Below a nickel a kw/hr is less than anything other than wind.

How much is Recurrent Energy receiving in government subsidies, tax credits or whatever?

 

[Markle]

Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.

But the same happens on the other side too.

The problem is that those who believe there is no man made climate change seem to say if one person slightly exaggerates, or slightly misleads, then the whole thing is a myth and made up and all of that.

Again, ridiculous, it would imply that lying has the ability to stop man made global warming.

The whole claim of manmade climate change is an exaggeration...there is not a single shred of observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim that man is causing the global climate to change.....it is all based on assumptions...but feel free to prove me wrong and provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence that supports the claim.

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

You stated:
"So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions."

That's not true.

Where have any of the forecasts from Global Warming radicals proven to be true? Simple...none.We

We've had, as you know, nearly two decades without Global Warming.

We've had nearly that long where the product from your Global Warming promoters has been to be fraudulent, figures adjusted with the intent to make it APPEAR that Global Warming had taken place. All in order to keep the grants coming to pay for the phony science.

 

[Crick]

How much is Recurrent Energy receiving in government subsidies, tax credits or whatever?

Lowest price yet for solar?
I have a hard time believing that’s the lowest solar power has gone for anywhere in the world, but it may be the lowest in the US if you remove state subsidies from other projects.

We reported last February on a PPA in New Mexico in which First Solar was selling electricity for 5.8¢/kWh. That’s the lowest I think I have seen. However, GTM Solar Analyst Cory Honeyman says that “new PPAs signed in North Carolina fetched prices for less than 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.” The notable difference in the New Mexico and North Carolina projects, as implied above — they took advantage of in-state subsidies for solar. That’s not the story with this Texas deal.

SunEdison project beat natural gas, coal, and nuclear on price
If you removed the ITC (a federal tax credit for solar), the cost would probably be about 8¢/kWh. Still, that’s not bad. Austin Energy’s 30-year LCOE estimate for natural gas was 7¢/kWh, while the estimate for coal clocked in at 10¢/kWh and the estimate for nuclear at 13¢/kWh.

Only wind — 2.8¢/kWh to 3.8¢/kWh — was lower.

Solar Less Than 5¢/kWh In Austin, Texas! (Cheaper Than Natural Gas, Coal, & Nuclear)

 

[Crick]

Coal, approximately 11 cents/kwhr
Natural gas, approximately 10 cents/kwhr
Nuclear, approximately 9.5 cents/kwhr

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's called science. To test if a model works, you have to have a hypothesis, use the data available, see if it works. If it doesn't then you try and tweak it and see if that works.

The biggest problem is when people get hold of PREDICTIONS and determine that this is somehow sacred and that if it's wrong then the people who made the predictions are somehow liars and idiots, when if fact it's the people who are reading the predictions as FACT that have the problem.

WELL DONE!! It's the first time that I can remember you posting up anything interesting.

What you said obviously has a lot of truth to it. Is it in context though?

Most people have neither the time, inclination or ability to understand climate science and decipher the predictions broadcast by the media. They simply add up all that they hear and make a rough average and consider that to be close to the truth. So the type and quantity of publicized predictions is important.

Next, what kind of predictions get publicized? Forecasts of Doom sells, uncertainty and continuation of the status quo do not. Prediction of 30 meters of sea level rise from a glacier melting is newsworthy and interesting. Prediction of sea level rise for the next hundred years being very similar to the last hundred years, is not. One scenario is impossible and the other is likely.

Next, who makes the predictions? Scientists for the most part. Why would they make or emphasise alarming forecasts? A few things to consider. CYA (cover your ass). There are no penalties for hyping bad but unlikely outcomes. But no one wants to get blamed if something does go seriously wrong and they said it wasn't likely. Status. Scientists who are recognized and quoted for predictions of Doom also get the high road to more funding and are called on by the media for their opinions. A positive feedback, to use the vernacular.

Should we blame the media for broadcasting unlikely scenarios, the scientists who allow the unlikely scenarios to be clipped out of their work without putting it in context, or the layman who believes what he is told because he is too ignorant to know better?

Often scientists will say there is a margin of error. You can see charts which show many different possibilities, but the media will take the most sensational and say "Scientists say this could happen" then read changes "could" to "will".

Often the people who read stuff, simply get taken in because they can't connect English words with what they actually mean.

Fair enough, but often the scientists are quite happy to be misconstrued. For example, Marcott spent a week on the publicity tour talking about how his new Hockeystick showed warmer recent temps but when he was pointedly questioned, he admitted that his work had no significance after 1900. Why did he not point this out to reporters? Why was he happy to go along with 'Forecast of Doom' stories? The original stories made the news, the retraction did not.

Well, individuals are individuals, and clearly some people will try and mislead, for whatever reason they think they want to.

But the same happens on the other side too.

The problem is that those who believe there is no man made climate change seem to say if one person slightly exaggerates, or slightly misleads, then the whole thing is a myth and made up and all of that.

Again, ridiculous, it would imply that lying has the ability to stop man made global warming.

Do you even know what the mainline skeptical position is? It is AGW lite vs CAGW. No skeptical scientists like Curry or Lindzen are saying the Greenhouse Effect isn't real. They are saying the effect is real but exaggerated positive feedbacks are not. 1C warming per 2xCO2 is not going to cause calamity. In the last five years the climate sensitivity has continued to drop from 3C, and seems to be converging to roughly 1C. Another paper just came out of Ireland saying the same thing, and pointed out more flaws in the GCMs.

You say exaggerations and misdirections don't disprove the basic theory. We're not disputing the basic theory. We're pointing out the exaggerations and flaws that lead to misdirection. Science is supposed to be scrupulous. Allowing mistakes to continue after they have been pointed out is the true anti-science.

Misdirection is a part of science. People look, they attempt to prove, they might fail, others criticize and then people try again and again.

However, if you haven't noticed, many people on this forum just deny, and they use any kind of "mistake" to "prove" that it's not happening.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, there's no evidence to support that man ISN'T changing the climate either, according to you logic, therefore all based on assumptions.

No actual evidence....no.

But again, I know when people say things like "provide some actual observed, measured, quantified evidence" that it's just going to be a waste of time. The person who says things like this has narrowed everything down to the point where they don't have to bother thinking, and sits smuggley, having decided they're right after dismissing all evidence because it doesn't suit their agenda.

Are you suggesting that the atmosphere and climate are not observable, measurable, quantifiable entities?....doesn't it strike you odd that there would be no observed, measured, quantified evidence in support of the A in AGW considering that both the climate and atmosphere are observable, measurable, and quantifiable?

You just don't like people asking for actual evidence which does not exist.

Well, I'm saying you can always present doubt.

If the temperature rises 1 degree over ten years. Does this mean it's man made global warming or just natural warming?

My theory is that we're supposed to be going through a natural cooling phase. In the last 400,000 years we've had a massive rise in temperatures and then once it's hit the top, then it goes down quite a bit afterwards. I have reason to believe we're in that dropping phase now.

So, if man made global warming increases temperatures by 2.2 degrees, and natural cooling is dropping temperatures by 2 degrees. What do you get?

 

[Billy_Bob]

How to teach a group of people why "back radiation" is a poor term and deceptive?

First lets look at the the basic molecules and their properties..

CO2: One Carbon Atom and 2 Oxygen Atoms.

The combined molecules do not react to LWIR photons. They absorb and re-emit these photon in 1-3 nanoseconds. The molecule can not retain heat and does not become excited when it absorbs photons.

H2O; One Hydrogen Atom and 2 Oxygen Atoms,

The combined molecules react and are excited by LWIR photons. It warms the molecule and can retain that heat for a time without re-emitting the photon. As the molecule cools the emitted photons wave length increases in length (as evidenced by the increased output wave lengths from water vapor)


The alarmists claim that back radiation will force energy back to the earth. This is actually the residency time of the energy in near surface molecules and slowed rise of heat from the earth. In the desert, in low humidity (water vapor) the temperature swing is 60-80 deg F daily showing that the water vapor directly above the surface is responsible for the slowing of the heat rise. CO2 has no effect on the deserts higher ground temps and CO2 not only can not hold heat, it can not re-emit enough, ground ward, to combat the loss.

While the atmosphere may indeed be re-emitting photons towards the ground it is incapable of holding the heat and the LWIR escapes to space rapidly.

Water vapor is the key to the system. In low convective cycles the day time temps use conduction near ground level to hold heat. at night however that conduction stops and convection releases the heat to space. Again the LWIR, from rising black body ground heat, is very minutely returned by CO2 re-emittance towards the ground and in insufficient volumes to warm the water vapor in the air.

The whole CO2 meme is total bull shit and has been from day one. Back radiation is just one more ambiguous term that means exactly squat.

I hate it when I do that.. It should have read "atoms"