Northern nations warming faster than global average

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I can only suppose that you believe saying incredibly stupid stuff is somehow cute

Yes, I think mocking your stupidity is cute.

Now, tell me more about your claim that IR can't heat the atmosphere. LOL!

 

[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

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.

First publication of peer reviewed (and now completely discredited) IPCC 5 said the oceans absorbed 93% of the imaginary warming

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.


.

Really? So how does it warm the ocean 2,000m deep?

 

[Wuwei]

The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.


.

 

[IanC]

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 makes a very strong point here.

Why does the media screw up so badly describing the GHE, and why do climate scientists go along with it?

Even if most laymen have difficulty understanding the nuance of atmospheric physics, the various levels of explanations should be available.

 

[IanC]

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.


.

I wish you had been around half a dozen years ago when I was describing the GHE as a surface bottleneck with a secondary one at the cloudtops.

All I got was quizzical looks or scorn for my trouble.

An interesting thought to consider is what would happen if H2O phase change was absent or weaker.

What do YOU think would happen to surface temperatures? Temp profile in general?

 

[Wuwei]

I wish you had been around half a dozen years ago when I was describing the GHE as a surface bottleneck with a secondary one at the cloudtops.

All I got was quizzical looks or scorn for my trouble.

An interesting thought to consider is what would happen if H2O phase change was absent or weaker.

What do YOU think would happen to surface temperatures? Temp profile in general?

Ah yes, the cloud tops. Where would they be without a phase change. The solubility of water (vapor) is much more temperature dependent than CO2. Initially the physics wouldn't be too different at the surface, but water would join CO2 in the stratosphere and beyond. The lapse rate would probably loose the kink at the top of the troposphere. Radiation to space would be at a lower warmer altitude and the earth would heat up. More water would evaporate, and there would be a run-away effect sort of like Venus.

I'm assuming that there still is a liquid to vapor phase change, but not a solid state within ambient conditions.

Edit. If there was a liquid to vapor phase change there would still be rain, but not snow. There are two stable phases changes with water. Are you talking about both?


.

 

[jc456]

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?

in your post, derp

 

[jc456]

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.

I can only suppose that you believe saying incredibly stupid stuff is somehow cute

Yes, I think mocking your stupidity is cute.

Now, tell me more about your claim that IR can't heat the atmosphere. LOL!

so you're now in that IR doesn't radiate back to the surface? instead note that it is absorbed and handed off as kinetic energy through collisions and that heats the atmosphere through conduction? yeah, I'm good.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.


.

So AGW is NOT heating the oceans. That's what we've been saying

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

in your post, derp

Which post? derp

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I can only suppose that you believe saying incredibly stupid stuff is somehow cute

Yes, I think mocking your stupidity is cute.

Now, tell me more about your claim that IR can't heat the atmosphere. LOL!

so you're now in that IR doesn't radiate back to the surface? instead note that it is absorbed and handed off as kinetic energy through collisions and that heats the atmosphere through conduction? yeah, I'm good.

so you're now in that IR doesn't radiate back to the surface?

You're lying.

instead note that it is absorbed and handed off as kinetic energy through collisions and that heats the atmosphere through conduction?

IR radiation warms GHGs and they conduct to non-GHGs thereby warming the atmosphere?
Are you sure? SSDD says IR doesn't lead to warming. IR "can't warm the atmosphere" he has claimed.

Now, back to your stance.

After CO2 absorbs IR and conducts energy away, can CO2 ever regain energy from Non-GHGs and radiate? Or does it never, ever radiate?

 

[jc456]

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?

in your post, derp

Which post? derp

the one with the lie

 

[jc456]

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.

I can only suppose that you believe saying incredibly stupid stuff is somehow cute

Yes, I think mocking your stupidity is cute.

Now, tell me more about your claim that IR can't heat the atmosphere. LOL!

so you're now in that IR doesn't radiate back to the surface? instead note that it is absorbed and handed off as kinetic energy through collisions and that heats the atmosphere through conduction? yeah, I'm good.

so you're now in that IR doesn't radiate back to the surface?

You're lying.

instead note that it is absorbed and handed off as kinetic energy through collisions and that heats the atmosphere through conduction?

IR radiation warms GHGs and they conduct to non-GHGs thereby warming the atmosphere?
Are you sure? SSDD says IR doesn't lead to warming. IR "can't warm the atmosphere" he has claimed.

Now, back to your stance.

After CO2 absorbs IR and conducts energy away, can CO2 ever regain energy from Non-GHGs and radiate? Or does it never, ever radiate?

CO2 can radiate after it absorbs IR and hasn't collided to hand off the energy it has absorbed.

And IR doesn't heat anything in the atmosphere. IR is converted to kinetic energy in the CO2 molecule and then handed off 99% of the time.

 

[Wuwei]

The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.


.

So AGW is NOT heating the oceans. That's what we've been saying

GHGs alone are not a source of heat.
The sun heats the oceans and land.
GHGs keep the surface heat from escaping too rapidly from the oceans and land.
If there were no GHGs too much heat would escape and the oceans would freeze.
The GHGs keep the ocean from freezing; they don't heat the ocean.
That's what we've been saying.
You were told this many times by many people.

You must have seen the blanket analogy many times.
A blanket is not a source of heat.
Your body is.
The blanket retains your body heat.

It can't be made simpler than that.


.

 

[jc456]

The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.


.

So AGW is NOT heating the oceans. That's what we've been saying

GHGs alone are not a source of heat.
The sun heats the oceans and land.
GHGs keep the surface heat from escaping too rapidly from the oceans and land.
If there were no GHGs too much heat would escape and the oceans would freeze.
The GHGs keep the ocean from freezing; they don't heat the ocean.
That's what we've been saying.
You were told this many times by many people.

You must have seen the blanket analogy many times.
A blanket is not a source of heat.
Your body is.
The blanket retains your body heat.

It can't be made simpler than that.


.

dude remarkable. The blanket keeps the cold off my body. it's a physical barrier. how is it the heavier the blanket the warmer one gets? too special indeed.

And how does conduction warm the water exactly? Cause that's what you just implied. tell us how it penetrates the water.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.


.

So AGW is NOT heating the oceans. That's what we've been saying

GHGs alone are not a source of heat.
The sun heats the oceans and land.
GHGs keep the surface heat from escaping too rapidly from the oceans and land.
If there were no GHGs too much heat would escape and the oceans would freeze.
The GHGs keep the ocean from freezing; they don't heat the ocean.
That's what we've been saying.
You were told this many times by many people.

You must have seen the blanket analogy many times.
A blanket is not a source of heat.
Your body is.
The blanket retains your body heat.

It can't be made simpler than that.


.

You're flailing and failing and I'm not surprised. You tend to make up "facts" on the fly especially you've pwned yourself so effectively. Your "explanations" are nothing short of fucking moronic to boot. The funniest thing is that you think you're lecturing me! You completely contradict yourself in 2 consecutive posts and you think you're smart, not like everyone says, like dumb!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Admit you lied

Where?

in your post, derp

Which post? derp

the one with the lie

If I lied, tell me the post....unless you're lying......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

I can only suppose that you believe saying incredibly stupid stuff is somehow cute

Yes, I think mocking your stupidity is cute.

Now, tell me more about your claim that IR can't heat the atmosphere. LOL!

so you're now in that IR doesn't radiate back to the surface? instead note that it is absorbed and handed off as kinetic energy through collisions and that heats the atmosphere through conduction? yeah, I'm good.

so you're now in that IR doesn't radiate back to the surface?

You're lying.

instead note that it is absorbed and handed off as kinetic energy through collisions and that heats the atmosphere through conduction?

IR radiation warms GHGs and they conduct to non-GHGs thereby warming the atmosphere?
Are you sure? SSDD says IR doesn't lead to warming. IR "can't warm the atmosphere" he has claimed.

Now, back to your stance.

After CO2 absorbs IR and conducts energy away, can CO2 ever regain energy from Non-GHGs and radiate? Or does it never, ever radiate?

CO2 can radiate after it absorbs IR and hasn't collided to hand off the energy it has absorbed.

And IR doesn't heat anything in the atmosphere. IR is converted to kinetic energy in the CO2 molecule and then handed off 99% of the time.

CO2 can radiate after it absorbs IR and hasn't collided to hand off the energy it has absorbed.

What if it gets energy handed back? Can it emit then?

And IR doesn't heat anything in the atmosphere. IR is converted to kinetic energy in the CO2 molecule and then handed off 99% of the time.

Step one, absorb IR. Step two, handoff energy resulting in a heated atmosphere.
Am I missing one of your steps that causes the IR absorption to not heat the atmosphere?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect does not heat anything. The sun heats the earth and penetrates the ocean.


.

So AGW is NOT heating the oceans. That's what we've been saying

GHGs alone are not a source of heat.
The sun heats the oceans and land.
GHGs keep the surface heat from escaping too rapidly from the oceans and land.
If there were no GHGs too much heat would escape and the oceans would freeze.
The GHGs keep the ocean from freezing; they don't heat the ocean.
That's what we've been saying.
You were told this many times by many people.

You must have seen the blanket analogy many times.
A blanket is not a source of heat.
Your body is.
The blanket retains your body heat.

It can't be made simpler than that.


.

dude remarkable. The blanket keeps the cold off my body. it's a physical barrier. how is it the heavier the blanket the warmer one gets? too special indeed.

And how does conduction warm the water exactly? Cause that's what you just implied. tell us how it penetrates the water.

The blanket keeps the cold off my body. it's a physical barrier.

The cold is a physical thing trying to get at you?