Simple Question for Those Who Subscribe to AGW....

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

Yeah. I was trying to explain that in my earth condom model. LOL.

That was a good one. SSDD needs many, many epicycles to build his creaky anti-science monolith upon.

 

[SSDD]

You going to state the basic mechanism of how climate science claims the greenhouse effect works or not? Till you have at least that much that you actually understand, there is no place to go...if you want to discuss the science, then demonstrate that you have at least the most basic grasp of what the greenhouse effect is and how climate science says it works.

I'll just stick with my previous statement which was exactly correct. And I just posted a link to a NASA/ERBE factsheet which backs me up.

Sorry but it wasn't...it is one thing to not know something....it is another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant...

You said:

Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

Climate science said:

To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Think maybe you can spot the crucial factor you left out of your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works? Here is a HINT....it is in bold fuschia...(that's a color sort of like purple)

That's what "Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth" is, stupid.

Can you not read? It says, as clearly as is possible I think, that the greenhouse gasses absorb IR FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and then re radiate it BACK TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH... Which part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

Well excuse the hell outta me. I didn't use exactly the same words as your talking points.

they are not my talking points...they are the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you don't have the basics right, then nothing that comes after will be right. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[Billy_Bob]

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

This is the problem.. The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it? The absence of a warmer area capable of this warming is necessary, without it AGW dies..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

That being said, I differ with SSDD in that I acknowledge that all matter radiates in all directions above 0 Kelvin. But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass, which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy, and cooling the larger mass.

SO Tell me Todd, how do you think this plays out? Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

Net energy cannot, but photons clearly can.

But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass,

You're wrong.

which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy

"Cooler photons" hitting warmer matter and draining away heat is your own unique misinterpretation.

Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

No outcome violates the 2nd Law. Not photons travelling millions to light-years to hit targets warmer than their source, not the Sun's surface radiating at the hotter corona, not the Earth's surface radiating at the hotter thermosphere and certainly not a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere sending a photon that impacts a much hotter part of the Earth's surface.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

That being said, I differ with SSDD in that I acknowledge that all matter radiates in all directions above 0 Kelvin. But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass, which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy, and cooling the larger mass.

SO Tell me Todd, how do you think this plays out? Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

Net energy cannot, but photons clearly can.

But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass,

You're wrong.

which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy

"Cooler photons" hitting warmer matter and draining away heat is your own unique misinterpretation.

Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

No outcome violates the 2nd Law. Not photons travelling millions to light-years to hit targets warmer than their source, not the Sun's surface radiating at the hotter corona, not the Earth's surface radiating at the hotter thermosphere and certainly not a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere sending a photon that impacts a much hotter part of the Earth's surface.

Again you try and place your own interpretation on physics and energy conservation. Please show me where, in science, a cooler mass placed on a warmer mass, warms it..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

This is the problem.. The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it? The absence of a warmer area capable of this warming is necessary, without it AGW dies..

The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it?

What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Moon's surface escape into space?
What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface escape into space?

 

[Cosmos]

I'll just stick with my previous statement which was exactly correct. And I just posted a link to a NASA/ERBE factsheet which backs me up.

Sorry but it wasn't...it is one thing to not know something....it is another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant...

You said:

Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

Climate science said:

To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Think maybe you can spot the crucial factor you left out of your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works? Here is a HINT....it is in bold fuschia...(that's a color sort of like purple)

That's what "Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth" is, stupid.

Can you not read? It says, as clearly as is possible I think, that the greenhouse gasses absorb IR FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and then re radiate it BACK TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH... Which part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

they are not my talking points...they are the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you don't have the basics right, then nothing that comes after will be right. Is that so hard to understand?

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof. A few minutes ago you were denying the very existence or even the possibility of a greenhouse effect. Now you're trying to school me on it even though I've explained it better than you did. Meanwhile the other moron says I don't understand greenhouse effect because I didn't mention feedback. Fucking morons. I've never denied the existence or feedback. No doubt it's the reason we haven't all burned up yet. Why don't you two fucking juveniles grow up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

That being said, I differ with SSDD in that I acknowledge that all matter radiates in all directions above 0 Kelvin. But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass, which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy, and cooling the larger mass.

SO Tell me Todd, how do you think this plays out? Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

Net energy cannot, but photons clearly can.

But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass,

You're wrong.

which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy

"Cooler photons" hitting warmer matter and draining away heat is your own unique misinterpretation.

Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

No outcome violates the 2nd Law. Not photons travelling millions to light-years to hit targets warmer than their source, not the Sun's surface radiating at the hotter corona, not the Earth's surface radiating at the hotter thermosphere and certainly not a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere sending a photon that impacts a much hotter part of the Earth's surface.

Again you try and place your own interpretation on physics and energy conservation.

Again you try and place your own interpretation on physics and energy conservation.

If you have a real source disagrees with anything I just posted.....provide it.

I'm especially interested in your claimed mass of a photon.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

This is the problem.. The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it? The absence of a warmer area capable of this warming is necessary, without it AGW dies..

The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it?

What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Moon's surface escape into space?
What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface escape into space?

Once saturation occurs all of it does.. In both instances.

Earth has entropy of the atmospheric mass, the moon has no atmosphere so it does not.

 

[Cosmos]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

That being said, I differ with SSDD in that I acknowledge that all matter radiates in all directions above 0 Kelvin. But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass, which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy, and cooling the larger mass.

SO Tell me Todd, how do you think this plays out? Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

Net energy cannot, but photons clearly can.

But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass,

You're wrong.

which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy

"Cooler photons" hitting warmer matter and draining away heat is your own unique misinterpretation.

Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

No outcome violates the 2nd Law. Not photons travelling millions to light-years to hit targets warmer than their source, not the Sun's surface radiating at the hotter corona, not the Earth's surface radiating at the hotter thermosphere and certainly not a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere sending a photon that impacts a much hotter part of the Earth's surface.

Again you try and place your own interpretation on physics and energy conservation. Please show me where, in science, a cooler mass placed on a warmer mass, warms it..

You can easily test this theory out for yourself by placing your finger in a pan of boiling water. Let us know which way the net energy flow is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

This is the problem.. The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it? The absence of a warmer area capable of this warming is necessary, without it AGW dies..

The atmosphere is COOLER than the surface. How exactly does it warm it?

What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Moon's surface escape into space?
What percentage of IR photons emitted by the Earth's surface escape into space?

Once saturation occurs all of it does.. In both instances.

Earth has entropy of the atmospheric mass, the moon has no atmosphere so it does not.

Once saturation occurs all of it does..

You think once the atmosphere is "saturated with IR photons", newly emitted ones "slip thru into space"?

the moon has no atmosphere

Does that mean 100% of surface emitted photons are immediately lost to space?

​

Earth has entropy of the atmospheric mass​

Does that mean less than 100% of surface emitted photons are immediately lost to space?​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here you go....paper after paper...report after report stating that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere...and although you aren't likely to understand the science, the claim is made as part of how there can be a radiative greenhouse effect... and all of these papers and all the rest got the idea that CO2 was a well mixed gas in the atmosphere from the mona loa station...it isn't a well mixed gas, and every paper that made the claim that it was as part of their defense of a radiative greenhouse effect is rendered false by that one fact...

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

That being said, I differ with SSDD in that I acknowledge that all matter radiates in all directions above 0 Kelvin. But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass, which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy, and cooling the larger mass.

SO Tell me Todd, how do you think this plays out? Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

Net energy cannot, but photons clearly can.

But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass,

You're wrong.

which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy

"Cooler photons" hitting warmer matter and draining away heat is your own unique misinterpretation.

Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

No outcome violates the 2nd Law. Not photons travelling millions to light-years to hit targets warmer than their source, not the Sun's surface radiating at the hotter corona, not the Earth's surface radiating at the hotter thermosphere and certainly not a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere sending a photon that impacts a much hotter part of the Earth's surface.

Again you try and place your own interpretation on physics and energy conservation. Please show me where, in science, a cooler mass placed on a warmer mass, warms it..

Please show me where, in science, a cooler mass placed on a warmer mass, warms it..

You need an example besides the Earth's atmosphere?

 

[SSDD]

Sorry but it wasn't...it is one thing to not know something....it is another thing entirely to be willfully ignorant...

You said:

Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth is absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2, Methane, and Water Vapor instead of escaping into space. This warms the atmosphere and the ocean. The more the greenhouse gases, the more the warming. "Well-mixed" is not in the equation.

Climate science said:

To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, pri- marily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is ab- sorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect.

Think maybe you can spot the crucial factor you left out of your explanation of how the greenhouse effect works? Here is a HINT....it is in bold fuschia...(that's a color sort of like purple)

That's what "Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth" is, stupid.

Can you not read? It says, as clearly as is possible I think, that the greenhouse gasses absorb IR FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and then re radiate it BACK TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH... Which part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

they are not my talking points...they are the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you don't have the basics right, then nothing that comes after will be right. Is that so hard to understand?

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof. A few minutes ago you were denying the very existence or even the possibility of a greenhouse effect. Now you're trying to school me on it even though I've explained it better than you did. Meanwhile the other moron says I don't understand greenhouse effect because I didn't mention feedback. Fucking morons. I've never denied the existence or feedback. No doubt it's the reason we haven't all burned up yet. Why don't you two fucking juveniles grow up.

Actually you didn't...you left out a critical part of the hypothetical mechanism...therefore everything you say after that is based on a flawed understanding of the basics. If we are going to discuss this, we both need to be on the same page...

Are we in agreement that the greenhouse hypothesis says that energy from the sun is reradiated from the surface of the earth in the form if infrared which is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses and then some of it is re radiated back to the surface of the earth which warms the surface more than the sun alone could which results in the earth radiating more radiation than it would without greenhouse gasses?

Are we in agreement on that basic mechanism as described by climate science?

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, ok. So it varies from 390 ppm to 410 ppm. That totally blows the Mauna Loa reading of 405 ppm out of the water and the entire theory is negated. Sure, stupid.

Don't you understand? If it's 405 ppm in every single parcel of atmosphere, IR can move from the atmosphere toward the surface.....but if it's 390 ppm in spots and 410 ppm in spots, IR is not allowed to move toward the surface.

Also....the 2nd Law tells IR photons they can only move away from the surface, not towards the surface. Clearly.

DURR......

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

That being said, I differ with SSDD in that I acknowledge that all matter radiates in all directions above 0 Kelvin. But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass, which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy, and cooling the larger mass.

SO Tell me Todd, how do you think this plays out? Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

The 2nd law is clear. Energy can not move from a cooler object to a warmer one.

Net energy cannot, but photons clearly can.

But I also acknowledge that photons are particles and thus mass,

You're wrong.

which when they collide with other masses (which are warmer) must be warmed to that new masses temperature, consuming energy

"Cooler photons" hitting warmer matter and draining away heat is your own unique misinterpretation.

Any other outcome violates the 2nd law..

No outcome violates the 2nd Law. Not photons travelling millions to light-years to hit targets warmer than their source, not the Sun's surface radiating at the hotter corona, not the Earth's surface radiating at the hotter thermosphere and certainly not a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere sending a photon that impacts a much hotter part of the Earth's surface.

Again you try and place your own interpretation on physics and energy conservation. Please show me where, in science, a cooler mass placed on a warmer mass, warms it..

You can easily test this theory out for yourself by placing your finger in a pan of boiling water. Let us know which way the net energy flow is.

The second law of thermodynamics predicts that energy will move from the hot water to your cooler finger and that your cooler finger will not warm the pan of boiling water...

 

[Cosmos]

That's what "Energy that is re-radiated in the IR by Earth" is, stupid.

Can you not read? It says, as clearly as is possible I think, that the greenhouse gasses absorb IR FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and then re radiate it BACK TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH... Which part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

they are not my talking points...they are the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you don't have the basics right, then nothing that comes after will be right. Is that so hard to understand?

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof. A few minutes ago you were denying the very existence or even the possibility of a greenhouse effect. Now you're trying to school me on it even though I've explained it better than you did. Meanwhile the other moron says I don't understand greenhouse effect because I didn't mention feedback. Fucking morons. I've never denied the existence or feedback. No doubt it's the reason we haven't all burned up yet. Why don't you two fucking juveniles grow up.

Actually you didn't...you left out a critical part of the hypothetical mechanism...therefore everything you say after that is based on a flawed understanding of the basics. If we are going to discuss this, we both need to be on the same page...

Are we in agreement that the greenhouse hypothesis says that energy from the sun is reradiated from the surface of the earth in the form if infrared which is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses and then some of it is re radiated back to the surface of the earth which warms the surface more than the sun alone could which results in the earth radiating more radiation than it would without greenhouse gasses?

Are we in agreement on that basic mechanism as described by climate science?

You said it didn't exist and wasn't possible. I take it you've changed your mind?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof.

At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Your modeling shows the failure quite well. Your understanding of the AGW hypothesis is that of zero as evidenced by predictive failure after predictive failure of your modeling (which demonstrates your understanding).

I would dare say, Dr Spencers work show this quite well;

I love how you guys claim its more certain as your failure grows larger and larger..

 

[SSDD]

Can you not read? It says, as clearly as is possible I think, that the greenhouse gasses absorb IR FROM THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH and then re radiate it BACK TO THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH... Which part of that are you having a hard time understanding?

The greenhouse effect says that the earth is warmed by the sun, then the earth radiates infrared away from its surface, then greenhouse gases absorb that radiation and RE RADIATE IT BACK TO THE SURFACE where that radiation further warms the surface resulting in more radiation emitting from the surface of the earth than it would radiate if there were no greenhouse gasses...

they are not my talking points...they are the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you don't have the basics right, then nothing that comes after will be right. Is that so hard to understand?

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof. A few minutes ago you were denying the very existence or even the possibility of a greenhouse effect. Now you're trying to school me on it even though I've explained it better than you did. Meanwhile the other moron says I don't understand greenhouse effect because I didn't mention feedback. Fucking morons. I've never denied the existence or feedback. No doubt it's the reason we haven't all burned up yet. Why don't you two fucking juveniles grow up.

Actually you didn't...you left out a critical part of the hypothetical mechanism...therefore everything you say after that is based on a flawed understanding of the basics. If we are going to discuss this, we both need to be on the same page...

Are we in agreement that the greenhouse hypothesis says that energy from the sun is reradiated from the surface of the earth in the form if infrared which is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses and then some of it is re radiated back to the surface of the earth which warms the surface more than the sun alone could which results in the earth radiating more radiation than it would without greenhouse gasses?

Are we in agreement on that basic mechanism as described by climate science?

You said it didn't exist and wasn't possible. I take it you've changed your mind?

I said as described by climate science....do you agree that that statement describes how the greenhouse works according to climate science...Of course, I think it is bullshit, but unless we agree on what climate science claims, there is no point in moving further.

 

[Cosmos]

they are not my talking points...they are the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you don't have the basics right, then nothing that comes after will be right. Is that so hard to understand?

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof. A few minutes ago you were denying the very existence or even the possibility of a greenhouse effect. Now you're trying to school me on it even though I've explained it better than you did. Meanwhile the other moron says I don't understand greenhouse effect because I didn't mention feedback. Fucking morons. I've never denied the existence or feedback. No doubt it's the reason we haven't all burned up yet. Why don't you two fucking juveniles grow up.

Actually you didn't...you left out a critical part of the hypothetical mechanism...therefore everything you say after that is based on a flawed understanding of the basics. If we are going to discuss this, we both need to be on the same page...

Are we in agreement that the greenhouse hypothesis says that energy from the sun is reradiated from the surface of the earth in the form if infrared which is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses and then some of it is re radiated back to the surface of the earth which warms the surface more than the sun alone could which results in the earth radiating more radiation than it would without greenhouse gasses?

Are we in agreement on that basic mechanism as described by climate science?

You said it didn't exist and wasn't possible. I take it you've changed your mind?

I said as described by climate science....do you agree that that statement describes how the greenhouse works according to climate science...Of course, I think it is bullshit, but unless we agree on what climate science claims, there is no point in moving further.

You seem to be stuck, so I guess there's no way to move on any further.

 

[SSDD]

they are not my talking points...they are the description of the mechanism of the greenhouse effect as described by climate science...if you don't have the basics right, then nothing that comes after will be right. Is that so hard to understand?

What's hard to understand are your dingbat's silly ass arguments, or lack thereof. A few minutes ago you were denying the very existence or even the possibility of a greenhouse effect. Now you're trying to school me on it even though I've explained it better than you did. Meanwhile the other moron says I don't understand greenhouse effect because I didn't mention feedback. Fucking morons. I've never denied the existence or feedback. No doubt it's the reason we haven't all burned up yet. Why don't you two fucking juveniles grow up.

Actually you didn't...you left out a critical part of the hypothetical mechanism...therefore everything you say after that is based on a flawed understanding of the basics. If we are going to discuss this, we both need to be on the same page...

Are we in agreement that the greenhouse hypothesis says that energy from the sun is reradiated from the surface of the earth in the form if infrared which is then absorbed by greenhouse gasses and then some of it is re radiated back to the surface of the earth which warms the surface more than the sun alone could which results in the earth radiating more radiation than it would without greenhouse gasses?

Are we in agreement on that basic mechanism as described by climate science?

You said it didn't exist and wasn't possible. I take it you've changed your mind?

I said as described by climate science....do you agree that that statement describes how the greenhouse works according to climate science...Of course, I think it is bullshit, but unless we agree on what climate science claims, there is no point in moving further.

You seem to be stuck, so I guess there's no way to move on any further.

So I give you the mechanism that climate science says is responsible for the greenhouse effect and you can't even agree that is what it says? Sounds like a dodge...Sounds like you are afraid of what comes next so you either play stupid, or are so stupid that even when you are given the direct quote from the IPCC you can't agree that is what they say.

More likely, you are afraid of what comes next....which is the dismantling of the hypothesis according to the laws of physics. Live in your ignorance...spew your talking points, be a useful idiot...if you fear learning something that much, it is no less than what you deserve...

 

[Cosmos]

At no time did I say that the globe wasn't warming or that the green house hypothesis was total bunk, what I did say was man's impact was irrelevant and the AGW hypothesis, as stated by the IPCC and alarmists was garbage..

Maybe that was the other idiot. You look alike to me.

Anyway, I'm quite sure the climate is warming and there is some human component in it. But neither am I an "alarmist". I would not say the situation is well enough understood to make any drastic public policy decisions, especially in the West where we've done a pretty good job of cleaning up our emissions. Certainly we should not do anything that would negatively impact our economy. The real problem is in Asia and India. If Trump wants to employ tariffs and trade barriers on those people I'm all for it if they are aimed at forcing compliance with Western health, safety, and environmental regulations.