Northern nations warming faster than global average

[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.

enough will never be enough for them. they have their jim jonesing information and will not relinquish that fantasy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Billy is thinking of the optical depth which is a measure of how deep radiation penetrates a substance. The amount of radiation through the substance drops exponentially with depth. It is also related to the transmittance of the substance.

Billy is quite wrong with his numbers. Back radiation at 3 meters is not attenuated by 1 / 10¹⁷. It would be attenuated by roughly 1/2. However, at above 100 meters, the exponentially drop-off will make it quite small, and for practical purposes, negligible.

Here is the way I look at it.
Above a 100 meters, the CO2 part of the atmosphere is swarming with CO2 in vibration states which are at equilibrium because of the Equipartition of energy. At that altitude the CO2 obtains it's vibration energy from thermal collisions, and has long “forgotten” what was happening nearer the earth surface. At those higher altitudes 15 micron radiation is minimal because collisions are the major energy transfer mechanism. But above the stratosphere, it's a different story when collisions are rare and radiation is the only way for the earth's energy to escape.

However near the earth surface (less than a few dozen meters) the capturing of radiation by GHGs increases the population of the vibration part of the thermal energy, which means that the energy is not equally partitioned anymore, but has an abundance of energy in the vibration mode. In the natural tendency to achieve equilibrium at lower altitudes the excess vibration energy is naturally transferred to kinetic energy of N2 and O2, and other traces gases. The atmosphere near earth thereby heats up. Vibration energy of GHGs near the surface will never be in equilibrium because of Earth's constant radiation outflux. Back radiation also occurs.


.

but how do you explain this?

As 99.9% of LWIR is absorbed and then transmitted via conduction in the atmosphere, once the energy reaches about 3 meters up. that is not IR any longer

Once an IR photon is absorbed, there are no more IR photons....ever?

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

 

[jc456]

but how do you explain this?

As 99.9% of LWIR is absorbed and then transmitted via conduction in the atmosphere, once the energy reaches about 3 meters up. that is not IR any longer

Once an IR photon is absorbed, there are no more IR photons....ever?

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?

 

[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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Once an IR photon is absorbed, there are no more IR photons....ever?

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

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 and resulting conduction to the top of the troposphere does.

That is a very ambiguous sentence. Energy is never lost. So it must be transformed. You previously said that absorption of IR by CO2 does not heat the atmosphere. If that is what you believe, just what do you think is conducted to the top of the troposphere?

.

 

[james bond]

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

If it means 2x GW for Canadians vs the US and the rest of the world, then their libs are not practicing what they preach. That said, more Canadian taxes will solve everything.

 

[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.

If you don't know any better than to quote CNN as a legitimate source by now, there's little hope for you. DUH!

 

[IanC]

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.

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 and resulting conduction to the top of the troposphere does.

That is a very ambiguous sentence. Energy is never lost. So it must be transformed. You previously said that absorption of IR by CO2 does not heat the atmosphere. If that is what you believe, just what do you think is conducted to the top of the troposphere?

.

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.

Only radiation escapes to space. Thete are multiple pathways back to the surface.

The energy being recycled from the atmosphere to the surface allows the surface to radiate at 400w even though the Sun only delivers 240w. Of the 400w given off by the surface, only 240w actually leaves the system. Equilibrium. The surface can be at a temperature that gives off 240w or 480w, as long as the IR leaving is the same amount as the SW coming in from the Sun.

(This is why SSDDs gravity/pressure predictions work. They always mirror the temperature present by circular reasoning. But the actual temperature can be anything in a fairly large range of possibilities)

 

[IanC]

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.

If you don't know any better than to quote CNN as a legitimate source by now, there's little hope for you. DUH!

Water temperatures are rising more slowly than land temperatures. Therefore most land temps will be rising faster than the global average (made up of land and ocean).

 

[Wuwei]

The energy being recycled from the atmosphere to the surface allows the surface to radiate at 400w even though the Sun only delivers 240w.

As you know, he will never admit to understanding that.
I have also asked him countless times where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go? He always deflects the question.

(This is why SSDDs gravity/pressure predictions work. They always mirror the temperature present by circular reasoning. But the actual temperature can be anything in a fairly large range of possibilities)

From fundamental principles the lapse rate can be derived by a surprisingly simple equation for any well behaved planetary atmosphere.
Lapse rate = gravitational acceleration / specific heat

What he doesn't understand is that the lapse rate is only a slope. To define the linear temperature profile, you also need an x intercept in this case, the surface temperature. Once you know the surface temperature, the rest is easy. But he doesn't understand that the mean surface temperature must come from some other physics and is not intrinsic to every planet.


.

 

[IanC]

SSDD knows it is very dangerous to be explicit in his posts. That is why he only spouts generalities that seldom match the topic being discussed.

 

[SSDD]

That is a very ambiguous sentence.

Reduced to picking fly shit out of the pepper now are you? You know perfectly well that I was speaking to energy lost by so called greenhouse gas molecules to any other molecule they happen to collide with which then proceeds to conduct on up to the top of the atmosphere... But if picking fly shit out of pepper gives you a thrill...help yourself.

 

[SSDD]

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.

 

[SSDD]

As you know, he will never admit to understanding that.
I have also asked him countless times where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go? He always deflects the question.

What a liar you are. I answered you after you finally admitted that the SB equation for a radiator in the presence of other matter describes a gross one way energy movement. The fact that you either didn't understand the answer, or didn't like it is irrelevant.

But I will provide it again just to prove that you are a liar.

temperature is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas.

Convection occurs in any atmosphere when the pressure is greater than 10kPa.

Convection (and the action of auto-compression) causes potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy in the 50% of gas that is descending in the Venusian atmosphere.

This occurs in accord with the following equation;
H = PV + U

Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

50% of the huge mass of the Venusian atmosphere holds a LOT of potential energy, hence the 16,000W/m2 at surface.

Like it or not, it explains the 16,000W/m2 at the surface of Venus...

 

[SSDD]

SSDD knows it is very dangerous to be explicit in his posts. That is why he only spouts generalities that seldom match the topic being discussed.

I am as explicit as necessary to get my point across... Generally, it takes little more than asking you model believers if you have a single piece of observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...the answer is almost always silence since you can't bring yourselves to admit that you have no evidence....you have unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable mathematical models....

 

[Wuwei]

Reduced to picking fly shit out of the pepper now are you? You know perfectly well that I was speaking to energy lost by so called greenhouse gas molecules to any other molecule they happen to collide with which then proceeds to conduct on up to the top of the atmosphere... But if picking fly shit out of pepper gives you a thrill...help yourself.

Reduced to ad hominem again I see.

energy lost by so called greenhouse gas molecules to any other molecule they happen to collide with which then proceeds to conduct on up to the top of the atmosphere.

The word "which" is a relative pronoun referring to an antecedent. I presume your "which" refers to "energy" which I presume is in the form of heat. Yet you have said many times that IR can't heat the atmosphere. Therefore your comment is still ambiguous.

Is this what you mean?
energy lost by so called greenhouse gas molecules to any other molecule they happen to collide with causes atmospheric heat which then proceeds to conduct on up to the top of the atmosphere.

.

 

[Wuwei]

As you know, he will never admit to understanding that.
I have also asked him countless times where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go? He always deflects the question.

What a liar you are. I answered you after you finally admitted that the SB equation for a radiator in the presence of other matter describes a gross one way energy movement. The fact that you either didn't understand the answer, or didn't like it is irrelevant.

But I will provide it again just to prove that you are a liar.

temperature is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas.

Convection occurs in any atmosphere when the pressure is greater than 10kPa.

Convection (and the action of auto-compression) causes potential energy to convert enthalpy, pressure and hence to kinetic energy in the 50% of gas that is descending in the Venusian atmosphere.

This occurs in accord with the following equation;
H = PV + U

Where;
H = enthalpy (J/kg)
P = pressure (Pa)
V = specific volume (m³)
U = specific internal energy (kinetic energy)

50% of the huge mass of the Venusian atmosphere holds a LOT of potential energy, hence the 16,000W/m2 at surface.

Like it or not, it explains the 16,000W/m2 at the surface of Venus...

I never admitted that the SB equation for a radiator describes a gross one way energy movement. Absolutely never! It describes two-way radiation exchange.

You copied and pasted some irrelevant equations you found on the web and end with this:
...it explains the 16,000W/m2 at the surface of Venus.

Look at my post you are quoting and you will see my question is:
...where does the 16,000 W/m² Venus surface radiation go?

I didn't ask where you think it came from. I asked where does it go!

As I said in post #153,

He always deflects the question.

You are deflecting again!

.