Northern nations warming faster than global average

[jc456]

nope, never said that. you're a liar. wash, rinse, repeat.

View attachment 258469

View attachment 258470
Northern nations warming faster than global average


After IR is absorbed by CO2, can CO2 ever emit IR?

sure, as long as it isn't colliding with other molecules. And when it does, it emits to space the colder area off of the surface.

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.

 

[jc456]

View attachment 258469

View attachment 258470
Northern nations warming faster than global average


After IR is absorbed by CO2, can CO2 ever emit IR?

sure, as long as it isn't colliding with other molecules. And when it does, it emits to space the colder area off of the surface.

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?

To paraphrase Heisenberg, jc is not even smart enough to be wrong.

and still smarter than you!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 258469

View attachment 258470
Northern nations warming faster than global average


After IR is absorbed by CO2, can CO2 ever emit IR?

sure, as long as it isn't colliding with other molecules. And when it does, it emits to space the colder area off of the surface.

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,

Northern nations warming faster than global average

Liar.

 

[Dick Foster]

Canada is warming at twice the global rate, report says - CNN
and
Canada’s Changing Climate Report

• The observed warming of Canadian temperatures are due to "human influence."
• There has been more rain than snowfall in Canada since 1948, a trend that looks to continue over the 21st century.
• Temperature extremes have changed in Canada, meaning extreme warm temperatures are getting hotter and extreme cold is becoming less cold.
• Extreme hot temperatures will become more frequent and intense.
• Over the last 30 years, the amount of snow-covered land has decreased in Canada.
• Flooding is expected to increase in Canada because of sea-level rise.
• Freshwater shortages in the summer are expected because warmer summers will increase the evaporation of surface water.

We've known that the Arctic had been warmed more than the rest of the planet by a significant margin. It should come as no surprise, then, that countries on the Arctic margin should share in that elevated warming: Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Finland and Russia are all likely to experience accelerated warming particularly on their northern boundaries.

So what? The planet has been warming and cooling for millennia.

Actually the climate has been in a constant state of change since earth was a planet. It was change that created the climate to begin with. When it stops changing, then you can worry because we'll be in real trouble. However all you'll likely be able to do is worry about before it takes us all out. Maybe we'll have time to bend over and kiss our asses good by.

 

[Wuwei]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

These three statements of the second law of thermodynamics are in lecture notes from a thermodynamics course at MIT.
5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law

1. No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law]
2. No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]
3. The entropy change of any system and its surroundings, considered together, is positive and approaches zero for any process which approaches reversibility.

MIT and many other science sites state that all three expressions are correct statements of the second law. Do you agree?


.

 

[SSDD]

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

And? Don't stop there.

Which part of that do you not understand? Are you saying that the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect? Any actual evidence of that claim that doesn't involve a complete misunderstanding of what you are seeing?...like the suns corona which is not an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?

 

[SSDD]

How does convection or conduction stop CO2 from absorbing surface produced 15 micron radiation?

Who ever said that it stops it from absorbing anything? The fact that energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by convection doesn't mean that CO2 can't absorb energy...it just means that the amount it radiates is so small as to be inconsequential...

Models of the radiative greenhouse effect assume that all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are busy absorbing IR and emitting IR...that simply is not true... About 1 in a million CO2 molecules actually emits the energy it absorbs....the rest lose that energy via a collision. Now take the amount of energy that the models assume CO2 to be radiating and reduce it so that rather than all of the CO2 molecules are radiating IR, only 1 in a billion are radiating IR...

How much IR does that leave CO2 to be radiating about the troposphere?

Green New Deal = Socialism in disguise to fool the people...

Water vapor overwhelms CO2 completely...you seem to think that CO2 is the only thing protecting us from being a snowball..

 

[SSDD]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

These three statements of the second law of thermodynamics are in lecture notes from a thermodynamics course at MIT.
5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law

1. No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law]
2. No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]
3. The entropy change of any system and its surroundings, considered together, is positive and approaches zero for any process which approaches reversibility.

MIT and many other science sites state that all three expressions are correct statements of the second law. Do you agree?


.

Been through it all before...if you must relive your losses...refer to any of the past incarnations of this discussion...I won't promote any further tedium on this board by rehashing the same material with you over and over ad nauseam.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.

And? Don't stop there.

Which part of that do you not understand? Are you saying that the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect? Any actual evidence of that claim that doesn't involve a complete misunderstanding of what you are seeing?...like the suns corona which is not an example of energy moving spontaneously from cool to warm?

Which part of that do you not understand?

The part where work is done that allows energy to more from surface to corona and surface to thermosphere.
Point out the work.....for once.

 

[Wuwei]

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

These three statements of the second law of thermodynamics are in lecture notes from a thermodynamics course at MIT.
5.1 Concept and Statements of the Second Law

1. No process is possible whose sole result is the absorption of heat from a reservoir and the conversion of this heat into work. [Kelvin-Planck statement of the second law]
2. No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body. [Clausius statement of the second law]
3. The entropy change of any system and its surroundings, considered together, is positive and approaches zero for any process which approaches reversibility.

MIT and many other science sites state that all three expressions are correct statements of the second law. Do you agree?


.

Been through it all before...if you must relive your losses...refer to any of the past incarnations of this discussion...I won't promote any further tedium on this board by rehashing the same material with you over and over ad nauseam.

Au contraire, you are the one promoting tedium by your bold faced, ". Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. Which you have posted and misinterpreted ad nausium countless times.

You have a lose-lose situation if you try to answer my post. So I understand why you want to deflect. It will show you painted yourself in a corner.

Again I don't take your insults personally because you are insulting all scientists who you essentially believe "relive their losses."

So, again do you agree that all three expressions of the SLOT are correct statements of the second law.
.

 

[Billy_Bob]

How does convection or conduction stop CO2 from absorbing surface produced 15 micron radiation?

Who ever said that it stops it from absorbing anything? The fact that energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by convection doesn't mean that CO2 can't absorb energy...it just means that the amount it radiates is so small as to be inconsequential...

Models of the radiative greenhouse effect assume that all the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere are busy absorbing IR and emitting IR...that simply is not true... About 1 in a million CO2 molecules actually emits the energy it absorbs....the rest lose that energy via a collision. Now take the amount of energy that the models assume CO2 to be radiating and reduce it so that rather than all of the CO2 molecules are radiating IR, only 1 in a billion are radiating IR...

How much IR does that leave CO2 to be radiating about the troposphere?


Water vapor overwhelms CO2 completely...you seem to think that CO2 is the only thing protecting us from being a snowball..

CO2 at ground level absorbs energy and releases it via collision. The minute amount re-radiated by CO2 will not reach earths surface from about three meters up due to this. This small amount of depth is sufficient to stop that 1 in a billion that is actually re-radiated by CO2. This however does not stop other sources of radiation.

Our alarmist friends cant grasp this simple concept.

 

[IanC]

Who ever said that it stops it from absorbing anything? The fact that energy movement through the troposphere is so completely dominated by convection doesn't mean that CO2 can't absorb energy...it just means that the amount it radiates is so small as to be inconsequential...

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.

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

Energy only leaves the Earth by radiation. Period. Why do you think that radiation is unimportant even though it is responsible for 100% of energy loss? Why do you think convection and conduction is so important even though all it does is make radiation heat loss more efficient?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Energy only leaves the Earth by radiation. Period. Why do you think that radiation is unimportant even though it is responsible for 100% of energy loss? Why do you think convection and conduction is so important even though all it does is make radiation heat loss more efficient?

IT is the process from BB radiation near surface --> conversion to atmospheric convection and conduction--> renunciation of water vapor and release at TOA, that you do not understand. It is also the reason there is no atmospheric hot spot and build up which is the foundation of AGW.

The main problem with the AGW hypothesis is, they think it is radiative in the primary area of the atmosphere, however in this region it is not. In the narrow band that CO2 can affect the primary route of release is convection and conduction. Only in very narrow regions such as deserts and the poles is the primary method radiative due to very low atmospheric water content.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Studies show that the rate of convection and conduction increases proportional to the temperature rise. The temperature rise will be local, not global, and be short lived. This is a primary driver of Hadley cell speeds which control the rate of convection.

 

[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.

 

[IanC]

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.

Studies show that the rate of convection and conduction increases proportional to the temperature rise. The temperature rise will be local, not global, and be short lived. This is a primary driver of Hadley cell speeds.

How does your comment rebut my statement?

Do you understand that phase change by water is not part of the radiative ghg effect? Only a complication?

I have no problem discussing other aspects of atmospheric physics with you. But we need to reach some sort of understanding on the simple case of CO2. You can't invoke the hotspot against CO2 because it is a whole other mechanism.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Studies show that the rate of convection and conduction increases proportional to the temperature rise. The temperature rise will be local, not global, and be short lived. This is a primary driver of Hadley cell speeds.

How does your comment rebut my statement?

Do you understand that phase change by water is not part of the radiative ghg effect? Only a complication?

I have no problem discussing other aspects of atmospheric physics with you. But we need to reach some sort of understanding on the simple case of CO2. You can't invoke the hotspot against CO2 because it is a whole other mechanism.

It rebuts your statement because it shows your energy release path as one of fiction over about 96% of the earth.

 

[jc456]

sure, as long as it isn't colliding with other molecules. And when it does, it emits to space the colder area off of the surface.

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.

 

[IanC]

It rebuts your statement because it shows your energy release path as one of fiction over about 96% of the earth.

My energy relese path? CO2 absorbing surface emitted 15 micron radiation in the first few metres, then emitting a fraction of that to space much higher up?

Why don't you describe where the 4% resides so that I can guess at your thoughts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It rebuts your statement because it shows your energy release path as one of fiction over about 96% of the earth.

My energy relese path? CO2 absorbing surface emitted 15 micron radiation in the first few metres, then emitting a fraction of that to space much higher up?

Why don't you describe where the 4% resides so that I can guess at your thoughts.

What you fail to see is water cools as it rises. This means the wave length of the energy obtained at surface level will be a much longer wave length at TOA.