Northern nations warming faster than global average

[SSDD]

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.

.

As I know, there is no radiative greenhouse effect as described by climate science

Then where does the 400 W/m² from the earth surface go?
and where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

You never answered that question. You only evade it.


.

Already provided the answer for you...Sorry you didn't like it. Refer to any of the other instances of this conversation if you must relive your losses. I won't promote your brand of tedium on the board.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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

Sure it can. why couldn't it? but it won't emit until it is in a vibrating state and still can loose that energy on another collision.

Am I missing one of your steps that causes the IR absorption to not heat the atmosphere
Well sure you are...IR is converted to kinetic energy. no longer IR. It's handed to another gas molecule that isn't the same molecular structure as it is.

What is it you think happens? seems you always avoid letting the class know what you think happens.

Sure it can. why couldn't it?

Excellent! And when it emits, it can send that photon in any direction, even toward the ground.

but it won't emit until it is in a vibrating state and still can loose that energy on another collision.

Yup. Sometimes it emits, sometimes it collides.

Well sure you are...IR is converted to kinetic energy. no longer IR.

Yes, the IR doesn't heat the atmosphere until it is absorbed.

It's handed to another gas molecule that isn't the same molecular structure as it is.

It's not restricted as far as the molecule it hits, but yes, that's how IR heats the atmosphere.

What is it you think happens?

The IR heats the atmosphere. SSDD was wrong. You too (And IR doesn't heat anything in the atmosphere)

Excellent! And when it emits, it can send that photon in any direction, even toward the ground.

If the surface is cooler than it sure? why not?

Yes, the IR doesn't heat the atmosphere until it is absorbed.
It's not restricted as far as the molecule it hits, but yes, that's how IR heats the atmosphere.
nope, it is no longer IR after it is absorbed.

The IR heats the atmosphere. SSDD was wrong. You too

Nope!! Kinetic Energy through conduction. If IR was what did it, there would be no need to specify conduction, now would there?

Conduction isn't emit, last I looked.

If the surface is cooler than it sure? why not?

Why does the surface have to be cooler?

nope, it is no longer IR after it is absorbed.

After it's absorbed, it's "heat".

Nope!! Kinetic Energy through conduction.

If it's heat after the CO2 conducts it, it's heat before CO2 conducts it.

If IR was what did it, there would be no need to specify conduction, now would there?

You've discovered the 2 step process. Don't tell SSDD​

Why does the surface have to be cooler?

You missed that in physics


If it's heat after the CO2 conducts it, it's heat before CO2 conducts it.

It’s not IR.

You've discovered the 2 step process. Don't tell SSDD

What we’ve known is IR doesn’t warm shit

You missed that in physics

Because I took real physics.

It’s not IR.

It's random kinetic energy now (heat).

What we’ve known is IR doesn’t warm shit

Except for GHGs and anything they collide with.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you can’t find any description of a radiative greenhouse effect​

I don't need to defend any definition of greenhouse effect.

Spoken like someone who can't defend the definition with observations. Want to tell me about computer models. Don't sweat it...I didn't expect you to even try and you didn't disappoint. Since there is no radiative greenhouse effect...and the description of said fantasy effect put forward by climate science does't speak to the fact that convection and conduction are the dominant means of energy transport through the troposphere, there is little you can say....other than a mammoth type defense which is no defense of your position at all.

As you've said, IR is absorbed by GHGs which then transfer that energy via collision.
If that added energy doesn't "heat the atmosphere", what does it do?

Here is a newsflash for you...energy transfer via collision is not IR...and the means by which conduction, convection, and pressure warm the atmosphere is not the means described by the radiative greenhouse effect. Engage in all the mental masturbation you like...get a solid 10.0 for your mental gymnastics routine, but heating due to conduction and convection are not IR. So as I said....IR does not, and can not warm the air.

Spoken like someone who can't defend the definition with observations.

I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.

Here is a newsflash for you...energy transfer via collision is not IR.

Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.

but heating due to conduction and convection are not IR.

But it's due to absorbed IR.

So as I said....IR does not, and can not warm the air.

Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.

 

[SSDD]

I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.

Of course you don't....you never did. You hold a belief not supported by observations...and since you can't defend your position with anything other than your belief...you lack the credibility necessary to be taken seriously by pointing out anything.

Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Again..refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described. That is why the models are wrong and will continue to be wrong...they are modelling a mechanism that doesn't happen...if they modelled conduction and convection, then they might just get it right...of course, it would mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero, but then the sensitivity to CO2 is zero.

But it's due to absorbed IR.

And so begins the mental masturbation and gymnastics....the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR? The fact is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not due to IR and a radiative greenhouse effect...

Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.

And have failed to provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...typical warmers...simply state that someone is wrong as if you don't need to provide any actual evidence that they are wrong. Want to claim that "consensus" is proof? May as well put on the whole tinfoil suit if you are going to wear the hat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.

Of course you don't....you never did. You hold a belief not supported by observations...and since you can't defend your position with anything other than your belief...you lack the credibility necessary to be taken seriously by pointing out anything.

Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Again..refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described. That is why the models are wrong and will continue to be wrong...they are modelling a mechanism that doesn't happen...if they modelled conduction and convection, then they might just get it right...of course, it would mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero, but then the sensitivity to CO2 is zero.

But it's due to absorbed IR.

And so begins the mental masturbation and gymnastics....the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR? The fact is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not due to IR and a radiative greenhouse effect...

Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.

And have failed to provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...typical warmers...simply state that someone is wrong as if you don't need to provide any actual evidence that they are wrong. Want to claim that "consensus" is proof? May as well put on the whole tinfoil suit if you are going to wear the hat.

You hold a belief not supported by observations...

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?

Nope. 97% is a bullshit stat.

 

[jc456]

I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.

Of course you don't....you never did. You hold a belief not supported by observations...and since you can't defend your position with anything other than your belief...you lack the credibility necessary to be taken seriously by pointing out anything.

Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Again..refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described. That is why the models are wrong and will continue to be wrong...they are modelling a mechanism that doesn't happen...if they modelled conduction and convection, then they might just get it right...of course, it would mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero, but then the sensitivity to CO2 is zero.

But it's due to absorbed IR.

And so begins the mental masturbation and gymnastics....the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR? The fact is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not due to IR and a radiative greenhouse effect...

Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.

And have failed to provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...typical warmers...simply state that someone is wrong as if you don't need to provide any actual evidence that they are wrong. Want to claim that "consensus" is proof? May as well put on the whole tinfoil suit if you are going to wear the hat.

You hold a belief not supported by observations...

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?

Nope. 97% is a bullshit stat.

. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

of course you're wrong.

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself? nope. so, you can't back up your own theory.

SSDD has the 2nd law. As do I. you, hmmm you're just derp!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.

Of course you don't....you never did. You hold a belief not supported by observations...and since you can't defend your position with anything other than your belief...you lack the credibility necessary to be taken seriously by pointing out anything.

Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Again..refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described. That is why the models are wrong and will continue to be wrong...they are modelling a mechanism that doesn't happen...if they modelled conduction and convection, then they might just get it right...of course, it would mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero, but then the sensitivity to CO2 is zero.

But it's due to absorbed IR.

And so begins the mental masturbation and gymnastics....the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR? The fact is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not due to IR and a radiative greenhouse effect...

Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.

And have failed to provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...typical warmers...simply state that someone is wrong as if you don't need to provide any actual evidence that they are wrong. Want to claim that "consensus" is proof? May as well put on the whole tinfoil suit if you are going to wear the hat.

You hold a belief not supported by observations...

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?

Nope. 97% is a bullshit stat.

. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

of course you're wrong.

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself? nope. so, you can't back up your own theory.

SSDD has the 2nd law. As do I. you, hmmm you're just derp!!

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?

Yes. From SSDD's own source.

 

[jc456]

I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.

Of course you don't....you never did. You hold a belief not supported by observations...and since you can't defend your position with anything other than your belief...you lack the credibility necessary to be taken seriously by pointing out anything.

Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Again..refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described. That is why the models are wrong and will continue to be wrong...they are modelling a mechanism that doesn't happen...if they modelled conduction and convection, then they might just get it right...of course, it would mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero, but then the sensitivity to CO2 is zero.

But it's due to absorbed IR.

And so begins the mental masturbation and gymnastics....the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR? The fact is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not due to IR and a radiative greenhouse effect...

Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.

And have failed to provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...typical warmers...simply state that someone is wrong as if you don't need to provide any actual evidence that they are wrong. Want to claim that "consensus" is proof? May as well put on the whole tinfoil suit if you are going to wear the hat.

You hold a belief not supported by observations...

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?

Nope. 97% is a bullshit stat.

. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

of course you're wrong.

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself? nope. so, you can't back up your own theory.

SSDD has the 2nd law. As do I. you, hmmm you're just derp!!

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?

Yes. From SSDD's own source.

nothing observed eh? so no evidence.

And mr. wash, rinse, repeat, he's explained to you what that is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.

Of course you don't....you never did. You hold a belief not supported by observations...and since you can't defend your position with anything other than your belief...you lack the credibility necessary to be taken seriously by pointing out anything.

Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Again..refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described. That is why the models are wrong and will continue to be wrong...they are modelling a mechanism that doesn't happen...if they modelled conduction and convection, then they might just get it right...of course, it would mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero, but then the sensitivity to CO2 is zero.

But it's due to absorbed IR.

And so begins the mental masturbation and gymnastics....the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR? The fact is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not due to IR and a radiative greenhouse effect...

Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.

And have failed to provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...typical warmers...simply state that someone is wrong as if you don't need to provide any actual evidence that they are wrong. Want to claim that "consensus" is proof? May as well put on the whole tinfoil suit if you are going to wear the hat.

You hold a belief not supported by observations...

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?

Nope. 97% is a bullshit stat.

. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

of course you're wrong.

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself? nope. so, you can't back up your own theory.

SSDD has the 2nd law. As do I. you, hmmm you're just derp!!

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?

Yes. From SSDD's own source.

nothing observed eh? so no evidence.

And mr. wash, rinse, repeat, he's explained to you what that is.

Handbook of Modern Sensors. Versus you two idiots.

 

[jc456]

Of course you don't....you never did. You hold a belief not supported by observations...and since you can't defend your position with anything other than your belief...you lack the credibility necessary to be taken seriously by pointing out anything.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Again..refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described. That is why the models are wrong and will continue to be wrong...they are modelling a mechanism that doesn't happen...if they modelled conduction and convection, then they might just get it right...of course, it would mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero, but then the sensitivity to CO2 is zero.

And so begins the mental masturbation and gymnastics....the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR? The fact is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not due to IR and a radiative greenhouse effect...

And have failed to provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...typical warmers...simply state that someone is wrong as if you don't need to provide any actual evidence that they are wrong. Want to claim that "consensus" is proof? May as well put on the whole tinfoil suit if you are going to wear the hat.

You hold a belief not supported by observations...

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?

Nope. 97% is a bullshit stat.

. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

of course you're wrong.

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself? nope. so, you can't back up your own theory.

SSDD has the 2nd law. As do I. you, hmmm you're just derp!!

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?

Yes. From SSDD's own source.

nothing observed eh? so no evidence.

And mr. wash, rinse, repeat, he's explained to you what that is.

Handbook of Modern Sensors. Versus you two idiots.

yeah, and again, your lack of understanding of how that sensor actually works is on you! but I digress. you still got nothing. 2nd law, go for it, and again tell me it's wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You hold a belief not supported by observations...

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?

Nope. 97% is a bullshit stat.

. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

of course you're wrong.

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself? nope. so, you can't back up your own theory.

SSDD has the 2nd law. As do I. you, hmmm you're just derp!!

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?

Yes. From SSDD's own source.

nothing observed eh? so no evidence.

And mr. wash, rinse, repeat, he's explained to you what that is.

Handbook of Modern Sensors. Versus you two idiots.

yeah, and again, your lack of understanding of how that sensor actually works is on you! but I digress. you still got nothing. 2nd law, go for it, and again tell me it's wrong.

You should contact the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors.
Tell them their diagram is wrong. Explain your "reasoning".
Please post their response.

 

[jc456]

. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

of course you're wrong.

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself? nope. so, you can't back up your own theory.

SSDD has the 2nd law. As do I. you, hmmm you're just derp!!

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?

Yes. From SSDD's own source.

nothing observed eh? so no evidence.

And mr. wash, rinse, repeat, he's explained to you what that is.

Handbook of Modern Sensors. Versus you two idiots.

yeah, and again, your lack of understanding of how that sensor actually works is on you! but I digress. you still got nothing. 2nd law, go for it, and again tell me it's wrong.

You should contact the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors.
Tell them their diagram is wrong. Explain your "reasoning".
Please post their response.

I don’t have to, I’m confident they understand how their design works. You should tell them you believe cold warms something hot

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?

Yes. From SSDD's own source.

nothing observed eh? so no evidence.

And mr. wash, rinse, repeat, he's explained to you what that is.

Handbook of Modern Sensors. Versus you two idiots.

yeah, and again, your lack of understanding of how that sensor actually works is on you! but I digress. you still got nothing. 2nd law, go for it, and again tell me it's wrong.

You should contact the publishers of the Handbook of Modern Sensors.
Tell them their diagram is wrong. Explain your "reasoning".
Please post their response.

I don’t have to, I’m confident they understand how their design works. You should tell them you believe cold warms something hot

I don’t have to, I’m confident they understand how their design works

You're right. They know, as the diagram shows, radiation is exchanged.

Let me know if you find a source that supports SSDD's claim. He needs your help.
Every source he posts ends up refuting his claims.

 

[SSDD]

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

Only all the laws of thermodynamics...and every observation ever made...

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

Mental masturbation...and an infantile need to not be wrong. Sorry guy, IR does not warm the air...the air is warmed by the exchange of energy between molecules via conduction...not IR.....and water vapor is the reason that we don't freeze to death..delete the wisp of CO2 from the atmosphere and the difference in temperature wouldn't be measurable..

There is no radiative greenhouse effect...No less than Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that Arrhenius was way off track with his radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis...

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

You got that right...you aren't defending jack...but you still believe...and without the first piece of actual observed, measured evidence...

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

So since the incoming UV is changed to IR, you accept that the emission from the earth is not UV but IR...but even though the energy that is captured via collision and is responsible for the temperature of the atmosphere is not IR, you still claim that IR is what warms the atmosphere? Funny that you can't see the flaw in your thinking...but then, you never could.

 

[SSDD]

I'm not defending AGW. Don't give a shit about any definition.
I don't need to, to point out your misinterpretations and errors.

Of course you don't....you never did. You hold a belief not supported by observations...and since you can't defend your position with anything other than your belief...you lack the credibility necessary to be taken seriously by pointing out anything.

Vanilla ice cream isn't IR either. So what?
IR is absorbed, turned into kinetic energy. Heat.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect. Again..refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described. That is why the models are wrong and will continue to be wrong...they are modelling a mechanism that doesn't happen...if they modelled conduction and convection, then they might just get it right...of course, it would mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is zero, but then the sensitivity to CO2 is zero.

But it's due to absorbed IR.

And so begins the mental masturbation and gymnastics....the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR? The fact is that the temperature of the atmosphere is not due to IR and a radiative greenhouse effect...

Yes, we've seen your idiocy repeatedly.

And have failed to provide the first piece of observed, measured evidence to demonstrate that I am wrong...typical warmers...simply state that someone is wrong as if you don't need to provide any actual evidence that they are wrong. Want to claim that "consensus" is proof? May as well put on the whole tinfoil suit if you are going to wear the hat.

You hold a belief not supported by observations...

You're full of shit. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

Which means that there is no radiative greenhouse effect.

IR from the surface is absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere.
That results in an atmosphere warmer than it would be absent those GHGs.
Call that whatever you want.

refer to any description of the radiative greenhouse effect and its supposed mechanism...it will be nothing whatsoever like what you just described.

Since I'm not defending any definition of greenhouse effect, so what?

the emissions are due to incoming UV...so why not call it UV rather than IR?

Feel free to discuss incoming UV all you want. Is it absorbed by the surface?
What does the surface emit in turn? UV or IR?

Want to claim that "consensus" is proof?

Nope. 97% is a bullshit stat.

. You still, after years, have no source that supports your one-way only photon flow or your matter at equilibrium ceases radiating beliefs.

of course you're wrong.

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself? nope. so, you can't back up your own theory.

SSDD has the 2nd law. As do I. you, hmmm you're just derp!!

BTW, have you posted that two way photon flow yourself?

Yes. From SSDD's own source.

You think a line drawing of an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable model is proof of what exactly? Do tell.

 

[IanC]

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?


.

I should have been more specific but I still like your answer.

Without phase change for H2O at normal range temperatures there would be very little convection. That would increase the lapse rate, causing a larger differential between high and low altitudes. I was mostly interested in losing the freight elevator that moves a large amount of energy upwards and the smoothing out of temps. Convection is a huge cooling agent, obviously. The GHE would be more noticeable without it.

You mentioned Venus. Venus has a much lower temperature differential between pole and equator, between daytime and nighttime. The complexities just escalate.

 

[SSDD]

Let me know if you find a source that supports SSDD's claim. He needs your help.
Every source he posts ends up refuting his claims.

So do quote the physical law that states that energy exchange is a two way proposition. This should be good. The second law says that energy can only move spontaneously from warm too cool...the SB law describes a one way energy flow...there is no derivation of the Planck law that describes two way energy flow...so lets see it...lets see the physical law that states that energy flows spontaneously in two directions...from warm to cool and from cool to warm...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Check out the weather in Boston. Feels like early December not early May. Not a 70 degree day in sight. Global Warming? I don’t see it.

 

[jc456]

Check out the weather in Boston. Feels like early December not early May. Not a 70 degree day in sight. Global Warming? I don’t see it.

43 in Chicago

 

[SSDD]

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?


.

I should have been more specific but I still like your answer.

Without phase change for H2O at normal range temperatures there would be very little convection. That would increase the lapse rate, causing a larger differential between high and low altitudes. I was mostly interested in losing the freight elevator that moves a large amount of energy upwards and the smoothing out of temps. Convection is a huge cooling agent, obviously. The GHE would be more noticeable without it.

There is no GHE...are you aware that Maxwell, Clausius, and Carnot said that Arrhenius's radiative greenhouse effect hypothesis was nonsense? Are you aware that there isn't a single measurement of a radiative greenhouse effect...

You mentioned Venus. Venus has a much lower temperature differential between pole and equator, between daytime and nighttime. The complexities just escalate.

And there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science on venus either....