Northern nations warming faster than global average

[IanC]

You simply can not grasp the concept. Your so fixated on CO2 that you cant see the forest through the trees...

You're an idiot who can't figure out cause and effect. You cannot seem to focus on CO2 long enough to reach any conclusions

 

[Billy_Bob]

As the energy rises the molecule cools and the wave length elongates. This is where your 4% is going.

Higher energy means cooling? Have you been drinking already?

You cant read the graphing can you. Cooling results in LESS energy.

Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer

Why did you state "as energy rises the molecule cools". (Quoted above)

What did you want me take away from that link? It doesn't make any claims that CO2 is radiating any wavelengths other than 15 microns.

Obviously you failed at reading the absorptive and emitted properties sections.

 

[IanC]

Does any of this explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean down to 2,000M?

CO2 does not directly heat the ocean.

 

[IanC]

As the energy rises the molecule cools and the wave length elongates. This is where your 4% is going.

Higher energy means cooling? Have you been drinking already?

You cant read the graphing can you. Cooling results in LESS energy.

Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer

Why did you state "as energy rises the molecule cools". (Quoted above)

What did you want me take away from that link? It doesn't make any claims that CO2 is radiating any wavelengths other than 15 microns.

Obviously you failed at reading the absorptive and emitted properties sections.

Copy and paste the section and explain in your own words why it is important.

Edit- I spent at least a minute scanning that paper. Nothing interesting or unusual popped out. Except maybe that your chart is totally derived by model. Im okay with that because atmospheric models are typically very close to measured data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

GHG warming is caused by intercepting surface radiation, stopping that amount of cooling. It is partially offset by GHG radiation to space at much higher altitude.

It isn't so called GHG that are intercepting the radiation. If they were able to absorb and emit their energy, it would move out of the atmosphere at the speed of light. It is the non radiative gasses that make up the bulk of the atmosphere that are doing the intercepting. They collide with so called greenhouse gasses that have absorbed some IR and the so called greenhouse gas loses that energy to the non radiative gas. Then rather than moving out of the atmosphere at the speed of light, the energy is conducted through the troposphere....a much slower process than radiating through the troposphere.

The method by which the fraction of surface energy input reaches the area where energy output happens is trivial.

That is perhaps the stupidest thing you have ever said. Compare the speed at which energy could radiate through the troposphere to the top of the atmosphere vs the speed at which it conducts through the troposphere and then radiates out when conduction is no longer possible because of the distance between molecules.

Energy only leaves the Earth by radiation. Period.

And all gas molecules radiate...an O2 or N2 molecule can radiate energy that they acquired via collision with another molecule when the molecules become so rarified that energy movement via conduction is no longer possible.

Why do you think that radiation is unimportant even though it is responsible for 100% of energy loss?

Because radiation is only important in the upper atmosphere...climate happens in the troposphere and there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the trosposphere...conduction and pressure completely dominate the troposphere...

Why do you think convection and conduction is so important even though all it does is make radiation heat loss more efficient?

Conduction is in no way a more efficient means of moving energy than radiation...where the hell do you get such stupid ideas? Radiation is a very cumbersome means of moving energy compared to radiation. How exactly do you think that a CO2 molecule which could radiate its bit of energy on out of the atmosphere at the speed of light is made more efficient by losing that bit of energy to an O2 or N2 molecule and than having that energy conducted to the top of the atmosphere where it is then radiated out to space. Which part of that seems more efficient to you? Inquiring minds want to know.

It isn't so called GHG that are intercepting the radiation. If they were able to absorb and emit their energy, it would move out of the atmosphere at the speed of light. It is the non radiative gasses that make up the bulk of the atmosphere that are doing the intercepting. They collide with so called greenhouse gasses that have absorbed some IR and the so called greenhouse gas loses that energy to the non radiative gas. Then rather than moving out of the atmosphere at the speed of light, the energy is conducted through the troposphere....a much slower process than radiating through the troposphere.

You've discovered the mechanism of GHGs warming the atmosphere. Congrats!
Don't tell SSDD, he thinks it doesn't happen.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

sure, as long as it isn't colliding with other molecules.

Only CO2 that doesn't collide is allowed to emit? Link?

A CO2 molecule vibrating is only allowed to emit.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating."

You're contradicting your previous claims. First you said they never emit again, now you say they do.
Were you wrong at first or are you wrong now?

nope, I never made such a claim, ol wash, rinse, repeat liar dude.

I never made such a claim,

View attachment 258525

View attachment 258526

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Liar.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit. I gave a scenario of when it isn't emitting, but never did I say it didn't ever emit. You're confused as always.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit.

So when you said here, "how does CO2 reemit?" you were saying it does?

 

[Wuwei]

GHG warming is caused by intercepting surface radiation, stopping that amount of cooling. It is partially offset by GHG radiation to space at much higher altitude.

It isn't so called GHG that are intercepting the radiation. If they were able to absorb and emit their energy, it would move out of the atmosphere at the speed of light. It is the non radiative gasses that make up the bulk of the atmosphere that are doing the intercepting. They collide with so called greenhouse gasses that have absorbed some IR and the so called greenhouse gas loses that energy to the non radiative gas. Then rather than moving out of the atmosphere at the speed of light, the energy is conducted through the troposphere....a much slower process than radiating through the troposphere.

The method by which the fraction of surface energy input reaches the area where energy output happens is trivial.

That is perhaps the stupidest thing you have ever said. Compare the speed at which energy could radiate through the troposphere to the top of the atmosphere vs the speed at which it conducts through the troposphere and then radiates out when conduction is no longer possible because of the distance between molecules.

Energy only leaves the Earth by radiation. Period.

And all gas molecules radiate...an O2 or N2 molecule can radiate energy that they acquired via collision with another molecule when the molecules become so rarified that energy movement via conduction is no longer possible.

Why do you think that radiation is unimportant even though it is responsible for 100% of energy loss?

Because radiation is only important in the upper atmosphere...climate happens in the troposphere and there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the trosposphere...conduction and pressure completely dominate the troposphere...

Why do you think convection and conduction is so important even though all it does is make radiation heat loss more efficient?

Conduction is in no way a more efficient means of moving energy than radiation...where the hell do you get such stupid ideas? Radiation is a very cumbersome means of moving energy compared to radiation. How exactly do you think that a CO2 molecule which could radiate its bit of energy on out of the atmosphere at the speed of light is made more efficient by losing that bit of energy to an O2 or N2 molecule and than having that energy conducted to the top of the atmosphere where it is then radiated out to space. Which part of that seems more efficient to you? Inquiring minds want to know.

It isn't so called GHG that are intercepting the radiation. If they were able to absorb and emit their energy, it would move out of the atmosphere at the speed of light. It is the non radiative gasses that make up the bulk of the atmosphere that are doing the intercepting. They collide with so called greenhouse gasses that have absorbed some IR and the so called greenhouse gas loses that energy to the non radiative gas. Then rather than moving out of the atmosphere at the speed of light, the energy is conducted through the troposphere....a much slower process than radiating through the troposphere.

You've discovered the mechanism of GHGs warming the atmosphere. Congrats!
Don't tell SSDD, he thinks it doesn't happen.

Yes, congrats. He seems to have turned around. For once I mostly agree with what he says, although it's rather awkwardly stated.


.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does any of this explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the ocean down to 2,000M?

CO2 does not directly heat the ocean.

Can't be! Peer reviewed IPCC said so

 

[jc456]

A CO2 molecule vibrating is only allowed to emit.

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education

"The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Some time later, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide molecule stops vibrating."

You're contradicting your previous claims. First you said they never emit again, now you say they do.
Were you wrong at first or are you wrong now?

nope, I never made such a claim, ol wash, rinse, repeat liar dude.

I never made such a claim,

View attachment 258525

View attachment 258526

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Liar.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit. I gave a scenario of when it isn't emitting, but never did I say it didn't ever emit. You're confused as always.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit.

So when you said here, "how does CO2 reemit?" you were saying it does?

well yeah when you add the rest of the sentence I wrote.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're contradicting your previous claims. First you said they never emit again, now you say they do.
Were you wrong at first or are you wrong now?

nope, I never made such a claim, ol wash, rinse, repeat liar dude.

I never made such a claim,

View attachment 258525

View attachment 258526

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Liar.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit. I gave a scenario of when it isn't emitting, but never did I say it didn't ever emit. You're confused as always.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit.

So when you said here, "how does CO2 reemit?" you were saying it does?

well yeah when you add the rest of the sentence I wrote.

Clear up the confusion.
Can CO2 ever "re-emit" or is it one and done?

 

[jc456]

nope, I never made such a claim, ol wash, rinse, repeat liar dude.

I never made such a claim,

View attachment 258525

View attachment 258526

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Liar.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit. I gave a scenario of when it isn't emitting, but never did I say it didn't ever emit. You're confused as always.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit.

So when you said here, "how does CO2 reemit?" you were saying it does?

well yeah when you add the rest of the sentence I wrote.

Clear up the confusion.
Can CO2 ever "re-emit" or is it one and done?

Admit you lied

 

[MarathonMike]

WOW! Canada is warming at TWICE the rate of global warming! Let's see it's been awhile since I was in college so bear with me. Now since the global warming rate is zero and Canada is twice that, Canada's warming rate is 2 x 0 = 0. Did I do that right?

 

[SSDD]

You've discovered the mechanism of GHGs warming the atmosphere. Congrats!
Don't tell SSDD, he thinks it doesn't happen.

I can only suppose that you believe saying incredibly stupid stuff is somehow cute...sorry, it's just incredibly stupid...

Tell you what sparky, how about you go out on the internet and bring back a description of the greenhouse effect that points out that conduction and convection are the primary means of energy movement through the troposphere....and how only one in a billion greenhouse gas molecules actually gets to emit a photon and the rest lose the energy they have absorbed via collisions with other molecules.

And do make sure they explain how the overwhelming dominance of conduction and convection in the troposphere equal a radiative greenhouse effect.

You might get wuwei to help you out since he seems to think that convection and conduction equal a radiative greenhouse effect as well.

I look forward to watching your abject failure...and just can't wait to see the excuses you put forward for not bringing any such description of the radiative greenhouse effect forward.

 

[SSDD]

GHG warming is caused by intercepting surface radiation, stopping that amount of cooling. It is partially offset by GHG radiation to space at much higher altitude.

It isn't so called GHG that are intercepting the radiation. If they were able to absorb and emit their energy, it would move out of the atmosphere at the speed of light. It is the non radiative gasses that make up the bulk of the atmosphere that are doing the intercepting. They collide with so called greenhouse gasses that have absorbed some IR and the so called greenhouse gas loses that energy to the non radiative gas. Then rather than moving out of the atmosphere at the speed of light, the energy is conducted through the troposphere....a much slower process than radiating through the troposphere.

The method by which the fraction of surface energy input reaches the area where energy output happens is trivial.

That is perhaps the stupidest thing you have ever said. Compare the speed at which energy could radiate through the troposphere to the top of the atmosphere vs the speed at which it conducts through the troposphere and then radiates out when conduction is no longer possible because of the distance between molecules.

Energy only leaves the Earth by radiation. Period.

And all gas molecules radiate...an O2 or N2 molecule can radiate energy that they acquired via collision with another molecule when the molecules become so rarified that energy movement via conduction is no longer possible.

Why do you think that radiation is unimportant even though it is responsible for 100% of energy loss?

Because radiation is only important in the upper atmosphere...climate happens in the troposphere and there is no radiative greenhouse effect in the trosposphere...conduction and pressure completely dominate the troposphere...

Why do you think convection and conduction is so important even though all it does is make radiation heat loss more efficient?

Conduction is in no way a more efficient means of moving energy than radiation...where the hell do you get such stupid ideas? Radiation is a very cumbersome means of moving energy compared to radiation. How exactly do you think that a CO2 molecule which could radiate its bit of energy on out of the atmosphere at the speed of light is made more efficient by losing that bit of energy to an O2 or N2 molecule and than having that energy conducted to the top of the atmosphere where it is then radiated out to space. Which part of that seems more efficient to you? Inquiring minds want to know.

It isn't so called GHG that are intercepting the radiation. If they were able to absorb and emit their energy, it would move out of the atmosphere at the speed of light. It is the non radiative gasses that make up the bulk of the atmosphere that are doing the intercepting. They collide with so called greenhouse gasses that have absorbed some IR and the so called greenhouse gas loses that energy to the non radiative gas. Then rather than moving out of the atmosphere at the speed of light, the energy is conducted through the troposphere....a much slower process than radiating through the troposphere.

You've discovered the mechanism of GHGs warming the atmosphere. Congrats!
Don't tell SSDD, he thinks it doesn't happen.

Yes, congrats. He seems to have turned around. For once I mostly agree with what he says, although it's rather awkwardly stated.


.

And yet, you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect exists in a troposphere completely dominated by convection and conduction. Maybe you can help toddster in his search for a description of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science that explains how the vast bulk of energy moving through the troposphere via convection and conduction equals a radiative greenhouse effect.

 

[SSDD]

WOW! Canada is warming at TWICE the rate of global warming! Let's see it's been awhile since I was in college so bear with me. Now since the global warming rate is zero and Canada is twice that, Canada's warming rate is 2 x 0 = 0. Did I do that right?

Great job...multiply any number by zero and you end up with zero. Move to the head of the class....and take bonus points for knowing that there is no man made global warming.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

WOW! Canada is warming at TWICE the rate of global warming! Let's see it's been awhile since I was in college so bear with me. Now since the global warming rate is zero and Canada is twice that, Canada's warming rate is 2 x 0 = 0. Did I do that right?

Great job...multiply any number by zero and you end up with zero. Move to the head of the class....and take bonus points for knowing that there is no man made global warming.

But once you add the warming 2,000m deep in the oceans

 

[SSDD]

WOW! Canada is warming at TWICE the rate of global warming! Let's see it's been awhile since I was in college so bear with me. Now since the global warming rate is zero and Canada is twice that, Canada's warming rate is 2 x 0 = 0. Did I do that right?

Great job...multiply any number by zero and you end up with zero. Move to the head of the class....and take bonus points for knowing that there is no man made global warming.

But once you add the warming 2,000m deep in the oceans

One of the mysteries of their religion...how does CO2 manage to warm the deep oceans? It is part of gaia's plan and not for us mere mortals to know.

 

[Wuwei]

And yet, you still believe that a radiative greenhouse effect exists in a troposphere completely dominated by convection and conduction. Maybe you can help toddster in his search for a description of the radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science that explains how the vast bulk of energy moving through the troposphere via convection and conduction equals a radiative greenhouse effect.

As you know, the radiative greenhouse effect has it's largest influence near the surface. Much less so above a few dozen meters.


.

 

[Wuwei]

WOW! Canada is warming at TWICE the rate of global warming! Let's see it's been awhile since I was in college so bear with me. Now since the global warming rate is zero and Canada is twice that, Canada's warming rate is 2 x 0 = 0. Did I do that right?

You would get the same number if you doubled your IQ.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never made such a claim,

View attachment 258525

View attachment 258526

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Liar.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit. I gave a scenario of when it isn't emitting, but never did I say it didn't ever emit. You're confused as always.

well again, not seeing where I said CO2 doesn't emit.

So when you said here, "how does CO2 reemit?" you were saying it does?

well yeah when you add the rest of the sentence I wrote.

Clear up the confusion.
Can CO2 ever "re-emit" or is it one and done?

Admit you lied

Where?