Northern nations warming faster than global average

[jc456]

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.

2nd law backs us. Wash, rinse, repeat

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

and every observation ever made...

You're lying. Not a single source backs up your claim that photons only flow one way.

Sorry guy, IR does not warm the air...the air is warmed by the exchange of energy between molecules via conduction...not IR

After IR is absorbed by GHGs, it's conducted to other molecules in the atmosphere.
There would be a lot less energy to conduct without GHGs.

You got that right...you aren't defending jack

I don't need to defend any portion of the AGW idiocy in order to notice, and mock, your errors.

So since the incoming UV is changed to IR, you accept that the emission from the earth is not UV but IR

You got one right. Did someone hijack your account?

but even though the energy that is captured via collision

Get that hijacker back! LOL!

The IR energy is captured when a GHG molecule absorbs the IR photon.

you still claim that IR is what warms the atmosphere?

Only because the IR is absorbed by GHGs before it can flash away into space at the speed of light.

 

[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.

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

The Handbook of Modern Sensors doesn't know how to test their sensors? DURR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. …

No exception given for dialing back emitted energy due to nearby matter or matter a billion light years away.

Maybe if you had a source that supports your dimmer switch theory you'd be taken more seriously?

 

[IanC]

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...

Another one of your crazy talking points. You have repeated it a few times now.

How could they disagree with a person not even born yet? (Yah yah, slight overlap with Maxwell)

Will you continue to make your claim in the future?

 

[jc456]

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...

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. …

No exception given for dialing back emitted energy due to nearby matter or matter a billion light years away.

Maybe if you had a source that supports your dimmer switch theory you'd be taken more seriously?

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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...

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. …

No exception given for dialing back emitted energy due to nearby matter or matter a billion light years away.

Maybe if you had a source that supports your dimmer switch theory you'd be taken more seriously?

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.

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.

The Sun's work is what allows the cooler surface to radiate toward the hotter corona?

 

[jc456]

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...

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. …

No exception given for dialing back emitted energy due to nearby matter or matter a billion light years away.

Maybe if you had a source that supports your dimmer switch theory you'd be taken more seriously?

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.

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.

The Sun's work is what allows the cooler surface to radiate toward the hotter corona?

Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t know

 

[IanC]

Heat continuously tries to diffuse in all directions. By conduction and radiation. Convection is a different process.

If you are looking at a small parcel of air embedded in a local area of the atmosphere, you will find that in every direction the amount of kinetic energy coming in is the same as the amount going ouy. Likewise with the internally generated radiation.

Warming that parcel of air would necessitate that more energy entered than left. This could happen by contact with warmer air, or excess radiation capable of being absorbed.

The GHE works by absorbing surface radiation that would otherwise simply escape to space. Warming near the surface, a smaller amount of cooling at altitude. Net energy increase for every wavelength that the GHGs absorb.

 

[IanC]

Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t

For any spontaneous reaction to occur, something had to reduce entropy (add order) between two areas in the first place.

Earth systems are 'powered' by the entropy increase when highly ordered sunlight comes in but disordered infrared leaves. The same amount of energy goes in both directions.

 

[jc456]

Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t

For any spontaneous reaction to occur, something had to reduce entropy (add order) between two areas in the first place.

Earth systems are 'powered' by the entropy increase when highly ordered sunlight comes in but disordered infrared leaves. The same amount of energy goes in both directions.

The ask was the corona and science doesn’t know why the corona is warmer than the surface

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t

For any spontaneous reaction to occur, something had to reduce entropy (add order) between two areas in the first place.

Earth systems are 'powered' by the entropy increase when highly ordered sunlight comes in but disordered infrared leaves. The same amount of energy goes in both directions.

The ask was the corona and science doesn’t know why the corona is warmer than the surface

Nobody here cares why the corona is warmer.

We care about SSDD's moronic claim that photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter.
Do you agree with his moronic claim?
If you do, explain why cooler matter on the Sun's surface can radiate toward the hotter corona.

 

[jc456]

Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t

For any spontaneous reaction to occur, something had to reduce entropy (add order) between two areas in the first place.

Earth systems are 'powered' by the entropy increase when highly ordered sunlight comes in but disordered infrared leaves. The same amount of energy goes in both directions.

The ask was the corona and science doesn’t know why the corona is warmer than the surface

Nobody here cares why the corona is warmer.

We care about SSDD's moronic claim that photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter.
Do you agree with his moronic claim?
If you do, explain why cooler matter on the Sun's surface can radiate toward the hotter corona.

Nobody here cares why the corona is warmer
Dude, you bring it up almost monthly over the last two years

 

[jc456]

Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t

For any spontaneous reaction to occur, something had to reduce entropy (add order) between two areas in the first place.

Earth systems are 'powered' by the entropy increase when highly ordered sunlight comes in but disordered infrared leaves. The same amount of energy goes in both directions.

The ask was the corona and science doesn’t know why the corona is warmer than the surface

Nobody here cares why the corona is warmer.

We care about SSDD's moronic claim that photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter.
Do you agree with his moronic claim?
If you do, explain why cooler matter on the Sun's surface can radiate toward the hotter corona.

Of course cooler objects can’t heat hot objects. You keep posting that they can. Still waiting on that observed experiment

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t

For any spontaneous reaction to occur, something had to reduce entropy (add order) between two areas in the first place.

Earth systems are 'powered' by the entropy increase when highly ordered sunlight comes in but disordered infrared leaves. The same amount of energy goes in both directions.

The ask was the corona and science doesn’t know why the corona is warmer than the surface

Nobody here cares why the corona is warmer.

We care about SSDD's moronic claim that photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter.
Do you agree with his moronic claim?
If you do, explain why cooler matter on the Sun's surface can radiate toward the hotter corona.

Nobody here cares why the corona is warmer
Dude, you bring it up almost monthly over the last two years

And still no answer for why it doesn't violate SSDD's one way photon idiocy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Asked and answered many times wash, rinse, repeat. Do you know it’s spontaneous? Please, post it because scientists say they don’t

For any spontaneous reaction to occur, something had to reduce entropy (add order) between two areas in the first place.

Earth systems are 'powered' by the entropy increase when highly ordered sunlight comes in but disordered infrared leaves. The same amount of energy goes in both directions.

The ask was the corona and science doesn’t know why the corona is warmer than the surface

Nobody here cares why the corona is warmer.

We care about SSDD's moronic claim that photons can't move from cooler matter to warmer matter.
Do you agree with his moronic claim?
If you do, explain why cooler matter on the Sun's surface can radiate toward the hotter corona.

Of course cooler objects can’t heat hot objects. You keep posting that they can. Still waiting on that observed experiment

Of course cooler objects can’t heat hot objects.

I didn't claim they did. I said, "cooler matter on the Sun's surface can radiate toward the hotter corona"

 

[SSDD]

.

You're lying. Not a single source backs up your claim that photons only flow one way.

So do provide a single observation and measurement of spontaneous two way energy exchange between objects of different temperatures.

. After IR is absorbed by GHGs, it's conducted to other molecules in the atmosphere.
There would be a lot less energy to conduct without GHGs.

And the IR is emitted after the surface of the earth is warmed by short wave radiation...but it isn't short wave that is being emitted by the surface...just like it isn't IR that is warming the air...mental masturbation is never going to get IR to warm the air...you need conduction to make that happen and where the energy comes from is completely irrelevant...when it is warming the air...it isn't IR...just like when it is emitting from the surface of the earth, it isn't short wave any longer.

. I don't need to defend any portion of the AGW idiocy in order to notice, and mock, your errors.

Translates as you can't, so you will toss out an ad hom or two in an attempt to deflect from the fact that you can't..

. You got one right. Did someone hijack your account?[p/quote]

And by the same logic, the energy that is warming the air is no longer IR...which excludes the possibility of a radiative greenhouse effect.

. The IR energy is captured when a GHG molecule absorbs the IR photon.

No...the energy captured is not IR...It might have been when it was captured, but once it was captured, it was no longer IR...the energy it lost due to collision was just energy...not IR...any more than the energy the surface emits is short wave...

 

[SSDD]

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...

Another one of your crazy talking points. You have repeated it a few times now.

How could they disagree with a person not even born yet? (Yah yah, slight overlap with Maxwell)

Will you continue to make your claim in the future?

I suppose I should have said that Maxwell, Clausius and Carnot said that the temperature of the atmosphere is the result of gravity, atmospheric mass, pressure, density, and heat capacities.

Guess I should have figured someone would start picking the fly shit out of the pepper...

 

[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...

Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. …

No exception given for dialing back emitted energy due to nearby matter or matter a billion light years away.

Maybe if you had a source that supports your dimmer switch theory you'd be taken more seriously?

I doubt that S-B would have been aware of the rules that science would later apply to photons...I didn't make them up, I just pointed them out and what the ramifications of those rules are.

 

[SSDD]

Heat continuously tries to diffuse in all directions. By conduction and radiation. Convection is a different process.

So now you are going to try and claim back conduction as well?