On snowfall and cold temperatures

[dfens]

Are you people too stupid to realize that global warming is concentrated in the oceans, impacts the arctic, and therefore changes weather patterns? And thus you are going to have storms, heavy snowfall, and cold fronts as part of the process?

Still, I'm not someone who believes we should do anything about it. These things will indeed come and go in cycles.

 

[SSDD]

Are you people too stupid to realize that global warming is concentrated in the oceans, impacts the arctic, and therefore changes weather patterns? And thus you are going to have storms, heavy snowfall, and cold fronts as part of the process?

Still, I'm not someone who believes we should do anything about it. These things will indeed come and go in cycles.

I agree that the oceans drive the climate...but how do you suppose CO2 causes the oceans to warm when the IR that it supposedly emits towards the surface causing warming is not absorbed by the ocean?

 

[Wuwei]

I agree that the oceans drive the climate...but how do you suppose CO2 causes the oceans to warm when the IR that it supposedly emits towards the surface causing warming is not absorbed by the ocean?

The sun is the major source that warms the ocean.
GHG's prevent the ocean from losing some heat the sun provides.
The oceans lose heat via IR only at the top few microns.
IR from back radiation penetrates only the top few microns.
More IR leaves the ocean than is absorbed by GHG back-radiation.
Therefore GHG's do not warm the ocean.

 

[SSDD]

I agree that the oceans drive the climate...but how do you suppose CO2 causes the oceans to warm when the IR that it supposedly emits towards the surface causing warming is not absorbed by the ocean?

The sun is the major source that warms the ocean.
GHG's prevent the ocean from losing some heat the sun provides.

And not a single measurement to support the statement.

The oceans lose heat via IR only at the top few microns.
IR from back radiation penetrates only the top few microns.

There is no back radiation. And so called GHG's don't cause anything to be warmer than it otherwise would beyond their contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

 

[Wuwei]

And not a single measurement to support the statement. ...
There is no back radiation. And so called GHG's don't cause anything to be warmer than it otherwise would beyond their contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

There have been many measurements to support that statement.
You have been trolling your message constantly because you don't believe the all the science and scientists behind radiation physics for the last 100 years.

 

[SSDD]

And not a single measurement to support the statement. ...
There is no back radiation. And so called GHG's don't cause anything to be warmer than it otherwise would beyond their contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

There have been many measurements to support that statement.
You have been trolling your message constantly because you don't believe the all the science and scientists behind radiation physics for the last 100 years.

Upon what actual evidence should I believe them? Unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?....no thanks...

 

[Crick]

Mountains of empirical evidence that you simply claim doesn't exist. Based solely on that, everyone on this board ought to put you on ignore.

 

[westwall]

Are you people too stupid to realize that global warming is concentrated in the oceans, impacts the arctic, and therefore changes weather patterns? And thus you are going to have storms, heavy snowfall, and cold fronts as part of the process?

Still, I'm not someone who believes we should do anything about it. These things will indeed come and go in cycles.

Yeah......ummmmm, as soon as you can explain, in scientific terms, how warmth causes things to get colder, and how heat can "hide" in cold water, I will listen to you.

 

[westwall]

Mountains of empirical evidence that you simply claim doesn't exist. Based solely on that, everyone on this board ought to put you on ignore.

Please provide links to your supposed empirical evidence. Thanks!

 

[Wuwei]

Upon what actual evidence should I believe them? Unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models?....no thanks...

There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the net radiation energy is from the hotter to the colder object. In radiation energy exchange, entropy will continually increase and satisfy the 2nd law. Do you believe the entropy representation of the second law is valid?