Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[jc456]

no Trump recognizes he will lose coastline and he wants a wall. That's it. Ireland doesn't allow walls on the ocean. his intent is quite clear use AGW to get a wall. It's what I already said.

so you are saying he is lying to them not to us ?

if that's what you want to call it. I'd say more he's using an available option and using his creativeness to get it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

no Trump recognizes he will lose coastline and he wants a wall. That's it. Ireland doesn't allow walls on the ocean. his intent is quite clear use AGW to get a wall. It's what I already said.

so you are saying he is lying to them not to us ?

if that's what you want to call it. I'd say more he's using an available option and using his creativeness to get it.

Like when he owes money and screws the people who lent him money with strategic bankruptcies....very admirable LOL

 

[jc456]

no Trump recognizes he will lose coastline and he wants a wall. That's it. Ireland doesn't allow walls on the ocean. his intent is quite clear use AGW to get a wall. It's what I already said.

so you are saying he is lying to them not to us ?

if that's what you want to call it. I'd say more he's using an available option and using his creativeness to get it.

Like when he owes money and screws the people who lent him money with strategic bankruptcies....very admirable LOL

exactly, wow you catch on. he has always used the resources available. It's what makes him a genius. There called laws and courts rule on them.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

exactly, wow you catch on. he has always used the resources available. It's what makes him a genius. There called laws and courts rule on them.

Bernie Maddoff used similar methods......only suckers go for that stuff lol...suckers LOL

 

[jc456]

exactly, wow you catch on. he has always used the resources available. It's what makes him a genius. There called laws and courts rule on them.

Bernie Maddoff used similar methods......only suckers go for that stuff lol...suckers LOL

no what he did was against the law. big difference. If the investments/ transactions for clients had actually occurred and failed, he'd have had no issue.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

exactly, wow you catch on. he has always used the resources available. It's what makes him a genius. There called laws and courts rule on them.

Bernie Maddoff used similar methods......only suckers go for that stuff lol...suckers LOL

no what he did was against the law. big difference. If the investments/ transactions for clients had actually occurred and failed, he'd have had no issue.

Only suckers follow Donald Hairclown..he laughs at you all

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Want to know the truth about Exxon and its history of climate change denial? We drew it up for you! Learn what we're fighting for - and how you can take action - with this useful hand-drawn explainer.


#ExxonKnew, explained
Exxon and other oil companies pay the same PR firms and right wing front groups that helped tobacco companies lie about the risks of smoking.
climatetruth.actionkit.com

 

[jc456]

Want to know the truth about Exxon and its history of climate change denial? We drew it up for you! Learn what we're fighting for - and how you can take action - with this useful hand-drawn explainer.


#ExxonKnew, explained
Exxon and other oil companies pay the same PR firms and right wing front groups that helped tobacco companies lie about the risks of smoking.
climatetruth.actionkit.com

No, no, explain how you think it's illegal?

 

[Wuwei]

The expression of SB's law as a subtraction is just a computational convenience when the object temperature and background temperature are known. It means nothing else.

Right....do you have any idea how stupid you sound...computational convenience....we are talking about a physical law here....no two way energy transfer has ever b been observed

I gave you quotes from Plank and you are saying he sounds stupid. You are saying all physicists for the last 150 years sound stupid. That is not a very convincing argument.

Set T1 and T2 to the same number...what does that make P in an equation describing a one way energy flow? I am sure that SB were bright enough to have formulated an equation describing a two way net energy flow had that been what they intended...alas, that isn't what they left us. The SB law isn't about net energy exchanges...it is a fabrication by those who need magical two way energy flow to support their magical greenhouse hypothesis.

So you think all physicists for the past 150 years have fabricated radiation exchange. You are essentially saying that two objects at the same temperature do not radiate at all to each other. Here are some references that totally disagree with you. This is not an argument between you and me. It is an argument between you and hundreds of thousand scientists over the last 150 years. I'm sorry, but you loose out. You can go ahead and invent your own physics, but you are left with no argument except to call them all fools.

Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
Wilhelm Wien - Nobel Lecture: On the Laws of Thermal Radiation
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivityGustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibriumIn physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhDKirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htmI
magine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heatso that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdfPage 31:
The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

 

[Wuwei]

The underlying mechanism of the forces in nature are all in the equations and interpretations of curved space and Feynman diagrams. That is all that physics ever was and will be. If you want anything more you will have to ask your God.

Sorry...but they aren't...I am sure that you believe they are.....but that is just you fooling yourself.

Underlying mechanism of EM theory are understood. It is obvious that your inability to accept that comes from your anti-science stance. It is rather hypocritical for you, who is anti-science and spreads your own breed of gut-feeling stories about thermodynamics, to talk about what scientists don't understand. The equations are all that is needed. Nothing more will help in understanding how to apply them.

No they aren't...as evidenced by the wave/particle duality explanation for light...you think light actually is both particle and wave? Are you that naive? The fact that you believe that we understand the underlying mechanisms that drive the universe shows very well how much you don't know.

You are saying all scientists for the last 150 years are naive.
The wave/particle duality was a puzzle 100 years ago, but that's old news. All of EM quantum mechanics is completely understood, and has been modeled to one part per billion accuracy. You are still living in the early 1900's.

 

[SSDD]

[
So you think all physicists for the past 150 years have fabricated radiation exchange.

What I know is that two way energy exchange has never been observed, or measured...it is a mathematical construct...nothing more. That is what is evident.

And after gore and obama won nobel prizes, I am surprised that anyone would hold that up as a badge of brilliance.

 

[SSDD]

You are saying all scientists for the last 150 years are naive.

What would you call people who believe in a mathematical construct over every observation and measurement ever made?

All of EM quantum mechanics is completely understood, and has been modeled to one part per billion accuracy. You are still living in the early 1900's.

Now that is one of the stupidest things you have ever said...

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Feynman

"Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense." Roger Penrose.

And I could go on ad nauseum....you are living in a fantasy world....but hey, you believe in AGW so that was a given already...wasn't it?

 

[Crick]

Gore and Obama did not win Nobel Prizes in any field of science, did they. What no one will hold up as a badge of brilliance is your good opinion in any subject.

 

[SSDD]

I haven't the faintest idea because such people do not exist. They do not exist because there is no significant disagreement between the models and the measurement. I do have a name for someone who claims that there are: liar.

Sorry crick, we have already established beyond any doubt that you are a lair...but feel free to provide some actual recorded measurement of two way energy exchange since you believe it has been measured...

Both quotes simply address QM's apparent irrationality and have nothing whatsoever to do with an understanding of the rules by which QM works. Why don't you pull up for us a list of the unsolved issues within QM itself? If it's such a great mystery, there must be such lists. Let's see them.

Sure...these are just from a first glance with no real effort put into the search...

Interpretation of quantum mechanics
How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive? Another way of stating this question regards the measurement problem: What constitutes a "measurement" which causes the wave function to collapse into a definite state? Unlike classical physical processes, some quantum mechanical processes (such as quantum teleportation arising from quantum entanglement) cannot be simultaneously "local", "causal", and "real", but it is not obvious which of these properties must be sacrificed or if an attempt to describe quantum mechanical processes in these senses is a category error such that a proper understanding of quantum mechanics would render the question meaningless.

Yang–Mills theory
Given an arbitrary compact gauge group, does a non-trivial quantum Yang–Mills theory with a finite mass gap exist? This problem is also listed as one of the Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics.

Physical information
Are there physical phenomena, such as wave function collapse or black holes, which irrevocably destroy information about their prior states? How is quantum information stored as a state of a quantum system?

Dimensionless physical constant
At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement. What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived? Are dimensionful physical constants necessary at all?

Vacuum catastrophe
Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

Quantum gravity
Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)?[8] Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

Black holes, black hole information paradox, and black hole radiation
Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds? Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by gauge–gravity duality, or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (since quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants? Is there another way to probe their internal structure somehow, if such a structure even exists?

 

[Wuwei]

What I know is that ......

What you know is mental bankruptcy

What would you call people who believe in a mathematical construct over every observation and measurement ever made?

I would call them scientists who made those observations and measurements and came up with a consistent universal understanding.

Now that is one of the stupidest things you have ever said...

Look it up. Quantum Electrodynamics is understood mathematically to an incredible accuracy.

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." Feynman

"Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense." Roger Penrose.

What they are saying is that the mathematics of QM evades intuition. So what? That shows the amazing power of physical observation and mathematical modeling of those observations.

And I could go on ad nauseum....you are living in a fantasy world....but hey, you believe in AGW so that was a given already...wasn't it?

Still trying to make it personal I see. What you are actually saying is that all physical scientists for the past 150 years are living in a fantasy world. Yeah. Lash out at the whole world.

You and your intellectual equals - Billy Bob, JC, Frank, and Skookerabil have all set a low bar at understanding science and failed to achieve even that.



.

 

[Crick]

Westwall has managed to remove material he posted and that I quoted.

 

[Wuwei]

Sure...these are just from a first glance with no real effort put into the search...

Interpretation of quantum mechanics ...... blah blah blah

Yes, we know you can copy science from wikipedia. As Crick said above, it has no relevance to any physics involving atomic structure that is directly connected with climate.

 

[Wuwei]

Westwall has managed to remove material he posted and that I quoted.

The material SSDD posted is still there, but you had an excellent point by point retort that I saw just moments ago. Now it's gone. My comment above referred to your retort, and now makes no sense. What is going on in this forum???

 

[skookerasbil]

CLIMATE MODEL PREDICTIONS

ACTUAL RESULTS





As atmospheric CO2 content increases, atmospheric temperatures will rise.

As atmospheric CO2 content increased, atmospheric temperatures have not risen





Hurricane intensity and frequency will increase

Hurricane intensity and frequency have decreased





It’s definitely ALL about the atmosphere

It’s probably about the atmosphere and the oceans, not sure what it’s about





Polar Ice mass will dramatically decrease

Polar ice mass has steadily increased





Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass will significantly decrease

Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass has remained nearly in balance





El Niños will increase in frequency and intensity

El Niño frequency and intensity are not well understood and unpredictable





Sea level will rise catastrophically

Sea Level has risen very slightly on par with historical post ice age rates





Spending enormous amounts of money will improve model accuracy

Enormous amounts of money has been spent, model accuracy has not improved





The soon to be released and updated climate model is the answer

Successive models continue to fail





The atmosphere will warm, the oceans will NOT warm

The atmosphere has not warmed in 18 years, but the oceans have warmed





Coral reefs will die off in warmer, more acidic oceans

Coral reefs are doing just fine, and have actually rebounded





Climate Models - Beautifully Inaccurate - Climate Dispatch

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[
So you think all physicists for the past 150 years have fabricated radiation exchange.

What I know is that two way energy exchange has never been observed, or measured...it is a mathematical construct...nothing more. That is what is evident.

And after gore and obama won nobel prizes, I am surprised that anyone would hold that up as a badge of brilliance.

What I know is that two way energy exchange has never been observed, or measured...

DERP!