Prediction of global temperature for 2017-2024

[Crick]

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???

You can see SSDD's posts here?

 

[Wuwei]

Not any more. I could see them when I started typing that response. But when I came back later they were gone. SSDD must have raised his bar on vile language for his posts to be wiped.

 

[Old Rocks]

But your missing the other matter in our atmosphere...

How does "the other matter" excuse your confusion about the direction photons travel when emitted?

I mean 0% is an enormous error, you have to admit.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?

You know, jc, I do believe that post epitomizes the knowledge level of people like you. Well done.

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere.

Spectrum of greenhouse radiation by direct observation. Evans 2006

The system itself has not responded to increased CO2 levels and what they expected to see.

The empirical evidence suggests that CO2 is a follower of temp by about 200-800 years not a driver of it. What we are seeing today is simply the response of warming over 200 years ago as we exited the LIA and not man caused anything.

Shakun et al 2014

so if all matter emits, why does some matter emit differently? This should be amazing.

Well now, jc, it is amazing. And you can really see a little of it here. However, for a more complete understanding, you should take a year of Chemistry and Physics, 200 level at a community college.

Energy Levels in Atoms

 

[Old Rocks]

Polar Ice mass will dramatically decrease

Polar ice mass has steadily increased

What the hell?





Fig.1 Arctic sea ice volume anomaly from PIOMAS updated once a month. Daily Sea Ice volume anomalies for each day are computed relative to the 1979 to 2014 average for that day of the year. Tickmarks on time axis refer to 1st day of year. The trend for the period 1979- present is shown in blue. Shaded areas show one and two standard deviations from the trend. Error bars indicate the uncertainty of the monthly anomaly plotted once per year.

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis





Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass will significantly decrease

Worldwide Alpine Glacier ice mass has remained nearly in balance

Where the fuck do you get shit like this?

Since glacier termini take a few years to respond to climate change, they will continue to retreat in the foreseeable future regardless of climate. With a continuation of the current climate retreat will continue as the glacier mass balances indicate the glaciers are not approaching equilibrium.

For detailed analysis of over 150 individual glaciers and their retreat histories utilize Glacier Change.

Global glacier retreat

Many more sites that track the world wide alpine glacial retreat.


El Niños will increase in frequency and intensity

El Niño frequency and intensity are not well understood and unpredictable

Well now, we have certainly been seeing some doozies lately, and they certainly have not been decreasing in intensity.



Sea level will rise catastrophically

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

A foot of sea level rise off New York increased the damage of Sandy quite dramatically.



Spending enormous amounts of money will improve model accuracy

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

The past and present models have been far more accurate than the silly denials of the paid shills of the energy corporations.



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

Successive models continue to fail

Really? A number of models stated that the next strong El Nino would set records. The very strong El Nino of 2015 definately has set records.





The atmosphere will warm, the oceans will NOT warm

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

That is pure bullshit. Show a link where a reputable scientist stated that the oceans would not warm.



Coral reefs will die off in warmer, more acidic oceans

Coral reefs are doing just fine, and have actually rebounded

In 1998, a huge underwater heatwave killed 16% of the corals on reefs around the world. Triggered by the El Niño of that year, it was declared the first major global coral bleaching event. The second global bleaching event that struck was triggered by the El Niño of 2010. The US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is predicting another strong El Niño and has now announced the third global bleaching event. The event is expected to impact approximately 38% of the world’s coral reefs by the end of this year and kill over 12,000 square kilometres of reefs.

This new phenomenon of mass bleaching is caused by ocean warming – corals are unable to cope with today’s prolonged peaks in temperatures. They simply haven’t been able to adapt to the higher base temperatures of the ocean. Although reefs represent less than 0.1 percent of the world’s ocean floor, they help support approximately 25 percent of all marine species. As a result, the livelihoods of 500 million people and income worth over $30 billion are at stake.

GLOBAL CORAL BLEACHING – 2015/2016 - THE WORLD’S THIRD MAJOR GLOBAL EVENT

What a silly lie.



Climate Models - Beautifully Inaccurate - Climate Dispatch

 

[jc456]

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling... Then the earth didn't comply with their directive and less than 0.03 hundredths of a degree could even remotely be attributed to CO2 'back radiation'. So they lowered their estimates to 1 deg C per doubling and the pause happened throwing this prediction into the garbage.. now they are toying with 0.3 to 0.6 deg C per doubling .. Yet the empirical evidence says that we are at a zero influence attribution to CO2 today...

SO either your photons are having little to no effect or the water cycle on earth is laying the runaway theory falsified... To date no one has done the science to determine which it is.. Historical evidence suggests that CO2 and its 'back radiation' have had no effect in the past. So i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Are photons being emitted? Yes... Can they strike cooler objects? Yes.. It is the effect on the cooler matter that no one has proven through empirical, observed evidence.. You would have some magical photons that can defy thermal dynamics and heat transfer laws to have an impact.

Let me see.. The IPCC originally said that CO2 will cause 4-6 deg C. warming per doubling...

I already told you I'm not interested in liberal lies about AGW, I just want to discuss the physics.

SO either your photons are having little to no effect

Great, lets talk about photons.

i side with the laws of thermal dynamics which state that a cooler object can not effect a warmer one.

Since we aren't talking about objects in contact with each other, but photons traveling freely in all directions, your confused understanding of thermodynamics and "smart photons" doesn't apply.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

As I understand the laws of EM wave propagation, it tells me that those photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength. Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer. The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler by factors of 10^6 order.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object one needs to simply look at the power differential of the waves being propagated. The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects, in very simple terms.

Please tell me what you think those photons are doing.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground.

photons, emitted from a warmer object, are at shorter wavelength. And those emitted from a cooler object are at a longer wavelength.

Yes.

Thus the energy they carry is less than the energy carried by the warmer.

Yes again.

The loss of the warmer object dwarfs any warming which might be caused by the cooler

Yes yet a third time. I'll ignore the bad math at the end of that last sentence.

To get a better picture of why BBR can not warm the hotter object

Here is where you go off the tracks.

The laws of thermal dynamics and why a cooler objects can not warm a hotter objects,

Again, we're talking about photons, not objects in contact.

I don't think anyone here has ever claimed that radiation from the 70 degree ground is emitted into the atmosphere, absorbed by GHGs and re-emitted to the ground, causing the ground to warm to 71 degrees.

Here is what back radiation does, it simply slows the rate of cooling. The warmer object, in this case the ground, still cools. Still emits more photons to the atmosphere than it receives back from the atmosphere.
There is no violation of the laws of thermodynamics (not thermal dynamics FFS).
There is no need for the emitter, or the photon, to measure the temperature of the surroundings before deciding where, or if, to emit a photon.

The Stefan Boltzmann constant shows that energy emitted is based on the 4th power of the temperature.

So if the ground is 293K and the atmosphere is 273K, ignoring for the moment the different emissivity of each, the ground will emit about 33% more energy than the atmosphere. The ground still cools, back radiation just slows the cooling, because some energy is coming back down.

In the desert, less H20 means faster cooling because there is less energy coming back down and more escaping more quickly into space. When the Sun sets on the Moon, the lack of any back radiation, because of the lack of any atmosphere, is further evidence of the point we're trying to show you.

Photons from CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere? They travel in random directions, sometimes toward space, sometimes toward the ground

other than taking a vacation around the atmosphere what exactly is their purpose?

You know, jc, I do believe that post epitomizes the knowledge level of people like you. Well done.

Prove back radiation

 

[Crick]

For the fifth time, a direct measurement of it with spectral identification of its sources

Evans 2006

 

[jc456]

For the fifth time, a direct measurement of it with spectral identification of its sources

Evans 2006

funny Evans believes like me that if this were indeed true, there would be instability and runaway warming. Hmmmmmmmmmm.. It's in Sketical Science: Funny the site you like.

 

[Crick]

Try: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

You're saying that Evans believes his own paper is not true? Show us the quote.

 

[JBond]

Mr. Westwall, you were confidently predicting cooling six years ago, what say you now?

The unmodified temp record shows a cooling trend.The government paid scientists have warped everything to continue their government funding. A question. How many monitoring stations have gone offline in the last 20 years?

 

[skookerasbil]

but the models are always wrong......and the data is frequently rigged.........that is undisputed fact ( unless you talk to a committed alarmist )

Anyway.............who cares................

Renewable Energy's Hidden Costs

The True Costs of Alternative Energy Sources: Are We Unfairly Penalizing Natural Gas?


The argument is moot.........because it is.

 

[Crick]

Considering how often you post with no response, YOU must care a lot.

 

[jc456]

CO2 back radiation is questionable as it is not seen or empirically observed in our atmosphere.

Spectrum of greenhouse radiation by direct observation. Evans 2006

The system itself has not responded to increased CO2 levels and what they expected to see.

The empirical evidence suggests that CO2 is a follower of temp by about 200-800 years not a driver of it. What we are seeing today is simply the response of warming over 200 years ago as we exited the LIA and not man caused anything.

Shakun et al 2014

so if all matter emits, why does some matter emit differently? This should be amazing.

Well now, jc, it is amazing. And you can really see a little of it here. However, for a more complete understanding, you should take a year of Chemistry and Physics, 200 level at a community college.

Energy Levels in Atoms

Bohr theory?

 

[jc456]

Try: https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

You're saying that Evans believes his own paper is not true? Show us the quote.

David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

Skeptical Science none the less.

"Runaway Warming
Evans continues demonstrating his misunderstanding of basic climate science with a reference to runaway global warming:

"There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable.""

Oops.

 

[Crick]

Oops. Evans 2006 was authored by Wayne F J Evans. Dr. David Evans is a well known denier fool.

I believe that is the second time you've made that same mistake jc.

 

[jc456]

Oops. Evans 2006 was authored by Wayne F J Evans. Dr. David Evans is a well known denier fool.

I believe that is the second time you've made that same mistake jc.

It's on you fool

 

[Crick]

That you made an ignorant mistake? I think not.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Britain's Royal Navy warships are breaking down because sea is too hot
Source: CNN

Britain's £1bn ($1.4bn) warships are losing power in the Persian Gulf because they cannot cope with the warm waters, MPs have been told.

Six Type 45 destroyers have repeatedly experienced power outages because of the temperatures, leaving servicemen in complete darkness.

During the Defence Committee hearing on Tuesday, MPs questioned company executives about the warship failures.

"The equipment is having to operate in far more arduous conditions that were initially required," Rolls-Royce director Tomas Leahy said. Managing director of BAE Systems Maritime, John Hudson, supported Leahy's comments, adding: "The operating profile at the time was that there would not be repeated or continuous operations in the Gulf."

Read more: Royal Navy ships are losing power because of warm seas - CNN.com

 

[JBond]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

LOL. Complete and total bullshit. Been hearing of global cooling from idiots like these since 1998. And look what the temperatures have been for 2014, 2015, and the present year.