Northern nations warming faster than global average

[Toddsterpatriot]

You won't get a straight answer from him.

Energy stored in the atmosphere has only two directions in which to escape. Outwards to space. Or inwards back to the surface.

There is only one direction energy may travel...and that is to cooler pastures. Energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm.

There is only one direction energy may travel...and that is to cooler pastures.

Which is why the Sun's surface can't radiate toward the corona and why the Earth's
surface can't radiate toward the thermosphere. DURR.

 

[jc456]

correct. it's absorbed and handed over through collision. It is not IR.

That would mean that energy never leaves the atmosphere.
Perhaps you's like to rethink your claim?

no thanks,

That must explain the runaway greenhouse effect we're experiencing.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Where?

The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

 

[jc456]

It isn't as if it matters...in either event, it rules out the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science in the troposphere...

Absorption of CO2 at very low altitudes does not rule out the radiative greenhouse effect.

The amount of energy lost via collision and resulting conduction to the top of the troposphere does...the amount of radiation happening in the troposphere isn't enough to produce any sort of radiative greenhouse effect...as observations clearly prove.

Been through this all before..if you want to see why you lost the first time, refer to any of the previous incarnations of this exact discussion.

The amount of energy lost via collision

Energy isn't lost via collision.

Sure it is. What do you think it is? It’s kinetic energy derp

Sure it is.

You're not real clear on conservation of energy.

Sure I am! Are you gonna do wash, rinse repeat? Never a counter argument on something you read. Dude you’re always the dick! I.... already know.

 

[IanC]

That would mean that energy never leaves the atmosphere.
Perhaps you's like to rethink your claim?

no thanks,

That must explain the runaway greenhouse effect we're experiencing.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Where?

The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.

Any thin slice of the atmosphere is doing this except for near the surface, and near the emission escape height. The atmosphere is warming near the surface due to excess radiation from a warmer source. High up the atmosphere is cooling by sending radiation to space. Both are happening, ypu can't have just one or the other.

The amount of energy being returned to the surface by various pathways must equal the difference between what comes in from the 15C surface and what goes out from the -50C top of the atmosphere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would mean that energy never leaves the atmosphere.
Perhaps you's like to rethink your claim?

no thanks,

That must explain the runaway greenhouse effect we're experiencing.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Where?

The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

Exactly! That energy can never leave the atmosphere....ever.

You've discovered the secret!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absorption of CO2 at very low altitudes does not rule out the radiative greenhouse effect.

The amount of energy lost via collision and resulting conduction to the top of the troposphere does...the amount of radiation happening in the troposphere isn't enough to produce any sort of radiative greenhouse effect...as observations clearly prove.

Been through this all before..if you want to see why you lost the first time, refer to any of the previous incarnations of this exact discussion.

The amount of energy lost via collision

Energy isn't lost via collision.

Sure it is. What do you think it is? It’s kinetic energy derp

Sure it is.

You're not real clear on conservation of energy.

Sure I am! Are you gonna do wash, rinse repeat? Never a counter argument on something you read. Dude you’re always the dick! I.... already know.

Sure I am!

That's why you said lost....because you know it isn't.

 

[jc456]

no thanks,

That must explain the runaway greenhouse effect we're experiencing.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Where?

The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

Exactly! That energy can never leave the atmosphere....ever.

You've discovered the secret!

You didn’t answer. Gotcha huh? Never a counter point dick

 

[jc456]

The amount of energy lost via collision and resulting conduction to the top of the troposphere does...the amount of radiation happening in the troposphere isn't enough to produce any sort of radiative greenhouse effect...as observations clearly prove.

Been through this all before..if you want to see why you lost the first time, refer to any of the previous incarnations of this exact discussion.

The amount of energy lost via collision

Energy isn't lost via collision.

Sure it is. What do you think it is? It’s kinetic energy derp

Sure it is.

You're not real clear on conservation of energy.

Sure I am! Are you gonna do wash, rinse repeat? Never a counter argument on something you read. Dude you’re always the dick! I.... already know.

Sure I am!

That's why you said lost....because you know it isn't.

Wash, rinse repeat again yahoo

 

[jc456]

no thanks,

That must explain the runaway greenhouse effect we're experiencing.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Where?

The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.

Any thin slice of the atmosphere is doing this except for near the surface, and near the emission escape height. The atmosphere is warming near the surface due to excess radiation from a warmer source. High up the atmosphere is cooling by sending radiation to space. Both are happening, ypu can't have just one or the other.

The amount of energy being returned to the surface by various pathways must equal the difference between what comes in from the 15C surface and what goes out from the -50C top of the atmosphere.

Where’s that IR coming from towards the surface? CO2 collides and hands off what it absorbed 99% of the time. So, which gas sends it back to the surface?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That must explain the runaway greenhouse effect we're experiencing.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Where?

The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

Exactly! That energy can never leave the atmosphere....ever.

You've discovered the secret!

You didn’t answer. Gotcha huh? Never a counter point dick

Answer what? You said CO2 can't re-emit.

Were you wrong? Were you lying?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That must explain the runaway greenhouse effect we're experiencing.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Where?

The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.

Any thin slice of the atmosphere is doing this except for near the surface, and near the emission escape height. The atmosphere is warming near the surface due to excess radiation from a warmer source. High up the atmosphere is cooling by sending radiation to space. Both are happening, ypu can't have just one or the other.

The amount of energy being returned to the surface by various pathways must equal the difference between what comes in from the 15C surface and what goes out from the -50C top of the atmosphere.

Where’s that IR coming from towards the surface? CO2 collides and hands off what it absorbed 99% of the time. So, which gas sends it back to the surface?

CO2 collides and hands off what it absorbed 99% of the time.

Is CO2 only allowed to lose energy when it collides?
Does CO2 ever gain energy when it collides?

 

[whitehall]

The cold fronts associated with late spring weather usually drop out of Canada. This year we see the usual or maybe moderately colder weather in the northern U.S. states in late spring with wet snow a week before May. The question arises about how the hell the weather can be getting warmer (less cold) in Canada while being colder in the U.S. The only logical conclusion is that the theory of MMGW has become a religion to the left. The crazy left believes the propaganda despite evidence that they can feel and touch for themselves that would disprove the theory.

 

[beautress]

Coronal hole faces Earth
Saturday, 20 April 2019 - 18:02 UTC

Space weather has been very quiet lately with not much interesting to report on. There haven't been any sunspot regions or solar eruptions worth mentioning and also here on Earth we've been having quiet geomagnetic conditions. This could however change in the near future as we have a southern hemisphere coronal hole facing our planet today. Those of you who follow us on Twitter or have the SpaceWeatherLive iOS/Android app have likely seen the automated coronal hole detection alert.

A southern hemisphere coronal hole is facing Earth. Enhanced solar wind could arrive in ~3 days. Follow live on Coronal holes pic.twitter.com/NslDIERINe

— SpaceWeatherLive (@_SpaceWeather_) April 20, 2019
This is a familiar coronal hole that faced our planet last rotation as well but it did not change much during the past 4 weeks. It perhaps slightly increased in size but nothing to write home about. Solar wind flowing from this coronal hole could arrive at our planet on Tuesday which would be 23 April. We do not expect a lot of geomagnetic unrest from this solar wind stream due to the limited size of this coronal hole but high latitude sky watchers who have dark enough skies should be alert for possible aurora displays but anything beyond Kp3 is unlikely.​

This article is here and has some suggestions for following solar flares and things outside of the earth that could hugely diminish the thought that it's all mankind's fault: Coronal hole faces Earth

There is a how to interpret this article at the bottom of the page if the implications are obscure after reading the article. I recommend it. Please consider that mankind may have little to do with what the sun is cooking up.

 

[SSDD]

Which is why the Sun's surface can't radiate toward the corona and why the Earth's
surface can't radiate toward the thermosphere. DURR.

As has been pointed out numerous times to you....science is working on the explanation for why the corona is warmer than the surface...they don't think it is because energy is spontaneously moving from cool to warm though...you seem to be the only one who thinks that energy is moving spontaneously from the cooler surface to the warmer corona...

And I guess you didn't know that you would freeze to death in seconds in the thermosphere...while the individual gas molecules may be very hot, they are so far apart that you would probably never even encounter one.

 

[SSDD]

The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.

Except that temperature gradients have been observed, and measured in columns of air. And by "same condition" does that mean differences in pressure, differences in composition, etc? Does that account for energy being lost by one molecule to another via collision, or is it speaking to radiation only?
.

The amount of energy being returned to the surface by various pathways must equal the difference between what comes in from the 15C surface and what goes out from the -50C top of the atmosphere.

Nothing is being "returned to the surface" except in cases of temperature inversion...the rest of the energy reaching the surface is either coming from the sun, or from below the surface.

 

[IanC]

Where?

The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.

Any thin slice of the atmosphere is doing this except for near the surface, and near the emission escape height. The atmosphere is warming near the surface due to excess radiation from a warmer source. High up the atmosphere is cooling by sending radiation to space. Both are happening, ypu can't have just one or the other.

The amount of energy being returned to the surface by various pathways must equal the difference between what comes in from the 15C surface and what goes out from the -50C top of the atmosphere.

Where’s that IR coming from towards the surface? CO2 collides and hands off what it absorbed 99% of the time. So, which gas sends it back to the surface?

CO2 collides and hands off what it absorbed 99% of the time.

Is CO2 only allowed to lose energy when it collides?
Does CO2 ever gain energy when it collides?

Exactly. SSDD somehow believes one side of the coin exists but the other side does not.

jc is too stupid to understand their is a coin.

 

[IanC]

The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.

Except that temperature gradients have been observed, and measured in columns of air. And by "same condition" does that mean differences in pressure, differences in composition, etc? Does that account for energy being lost by one molecule to another via collision, or is it speaking to radiation only?
.

The amount of energy being returned to the surface by various pathways must equal the difference between what comes in from the 15C surface and what goes out from the -50C top of the atmosphere.

Nothing is being "returned to the surface" except in cases of temperature inversion...the rest of the energy reaching the surface is either coming from the sun, or from below the surface.

When you transect a cone, are the resultant faces equal?

The Equipartition Theorum needs less assumptions than the Ideal Gas Law. Do you believe in one of them, both, or neither?

One of the assumptions of the IDL is that all collisions are perfectly elastic. Obviously they are not because molecules can be vibrationally excited or relaxed by collision.


As far as the surface temp...there is not enough solar insolation and/or geothermal heat available to produce the existing condition. Without energy returning from the atmosphere it simply cannot be that warm.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which is why the Sun's surface can't radiate toward the corona and why the Earth's
surface can't radiate toward the thermosphere. DURR.

As has been pointed out numerous times to you....science is working on the explanation for why the corona is warmer than the surface...they don't think it is because energy is spontaneously moving from cool to warm though...you seem to be the only one who thinks that energy is moving spontaneously from the cooler surface to the warmer corona...

And I guess you didn't know that you would freeze to death in seconds in the thermosphere...while the individual gas molecules may be very hot, they are so far apart that you would probably never even encounter one.

science is working on the explanation for why the corona is warmer than the surface..

Nobody gives a shit.
It is funny that your claim is so easily disproven.

you seem to be the only one who thinks that energy is moving spontaneously from the cooler surface to the warmer corona...

You're free to explain why it isn't.

 

[SSDD]

Where?

The atmosphere. Duh.
You said photons are absorbed by CO2, never to be re-emitted.

Not by CO2. If the energy moves, how does CO2 reemit?

The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.

Any thin slice of the atmosphere is doing this except for near the surface, and near the emission escape height. The atmosphere is warming near the surface due to excess radiation from a warmer source. High up the atmosphere is cooling by sending radiation to space. Both are happening, ypu can't have just one or the other.

The amount of energy being returned to the surface by various pathways must equal the difference between what comes in from the 15C surface and what goes out from the -50C top of the atmosphere.

Where’s that IR coming from towards the surface? CO2 collides and hands off what it absorbed 99% of the time. So, which gas sends it back to the surface?

CO2 collides and hands off what it absorbed 99% of the time.

Is CO2 only allowed to lose energy when it collides?
Does CO2 ever gain energy when it collides?

Of course it does...but then that energy is immediately lost via collision and the conduction of the energy through the troposphere continues..there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science.....a radiative greenhouse effect is not possible in a troposphere so completely dominated by pressure and convection.

 

[SSDD]

The Equipartition Theorum states that a volume of gas under the same conditions will both emit and absorb the same amount of radiation that it is capable of producing. In all directions and in an amount proportional to its temperature.

So tell me...where in our chaotic atmosphere might you find a significant volume of gas that is all experiencing the same conditions? Once again...you pose a mathematical model as if it were real.