RKS

Oh do stop editorialising. It's boring. I asked a question in order to avoid wasting time by talking past each other. Rhoda commented again but didn't respond to the question. That's all.

Do you want to have a sensible discussion, without the verbals?

TOA is just that, it's where the atmosphere meets 'space'. Disequilibrium is simply a measur of energy in at TOA compared to energy out at TOA. It is a simple measurement - it causes nothing but is used by the IPCC as proof of surface warming - NOT the CAUSE OF.

As I understand it, DSW begets OLR which has to get out of the atmosphere to maintain radiative equilibrium between the climate system and space.

Increased levels of GHGs in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) inhibit the outward flow of energy and the troposphere and surface begin to warm, raising the altitude of effective emission (aka TOA). Because temperature and pressure fall with altitude and both reduce the efficacy of radiative emission, a radiative imbalance develops.

More energy accumulates in the climate system causing the surface and lower atmosphere to continue to warm until the TOA becomes hot enough to reach a new radiative equilibrium. When it does, the surface and troposphere will stop warming. They will only cool if the atmospheric fraction of GHGs is reduced.

What I've been arguing here is that no bench model can capture this unless there's a computer on the bench running the model. So rhoda's demand for 'experimental evidence' is not going to be met. Rhoda won't address this problem with the nature of her question, and remains 'dug in' (her words). Nothing much else is going to happen unless this changes.

RKS

Stop waffling. You'e just babbling on

BBD:

Do you want to have a sensible discussion, without the verbals?

RKS:

don't you understand basic blog manners.

Yes. Which is why I don't engage with you.

Stop waffling. You'e just babbling on about your own interpretation of some simple measurements.

It's not *my* interpretation. I'm just summarising. The GHE is complex. My summary is inadequate, of course. There's a detailed explanation here.

Same thing as with rhoda: if you are genuinely interested in answering your questions, then explore. Read on.

RKS

Is he qualified yet? Has he published this? - is it in AR5?

Colose simply rehearses the standard scientific exposition. What he writes is what you get taught if you study atmospheric physics. It's what's in the textbooks (see SoD for many direct examples). I hope the fact that you've demonstrated that you do not even recognise it as such is properly, painfully embarrassing for you.

Since this is the standard scientific description of the GHE, I think it's safe to assume that it's the one used by the IPCC along with everyone else.

Perhaps you should study the science you are so loudly 'sceptical' about a little more closely? At least to the point of moderate familiarity with the essentials. Next time, you might also hesitate before describing others as 'numpties' and classifying their (correct) statements as 'babblings' and the 'outpourings of an ill-informed adolescent'. And so on.

Same goes for you, Mike. You need to shut up with the 'sceptical' yack and get some reading under your belt. As I have said to you before. This isn't patronising, it is true as you know perfectly well.

Having read this potentially very interesting thread from the time is was started by Rhoda, along with I'm sure many others who don't generally contribute, I would suggest that now would be a good time to call a halt, and explore the possibilities of starting the same thread on a blog where trolls are not accepted. It is quite obvious to all that this BBD guy has a very limited knowledge of the subject, but in order to appear to know more that he actually does, he just waffles and spoils, rambles and insults.
Leave him to his own rather limited thoughts and move on, please!

GW

and explore the possibilities of starting the same thread on a blog where trolls are not accepted. It is quite obvious to all that this BBD guy has a very limited knowledge of the subject, but in order to appear to know more that he actually does, he just waffles and spoils, rambles and insults.

I'm getting a little tired of the misrepresentations here. Please support your editorialising at my expense with some examples. You can start by illustrating exactly how my knowledge of any topic discussed on the whole thread is 'limited' in comparison to that of any other commenter here.

Then, you can provide the large number of examples you need to make your point of my 'waffling, spoiling, rambling and insulting'.

Or you can stop trolling this conversation.

*What* 'disruptive rubbish'? I'm not the one who doesn't recognise the standard scientific explanation of the GHE when it is put in front of me. Nor am I posting abusive commentary about other people here. All I have done on this thread is examine the nature of the question rhoda asked in greater detail. That process has been revealing, but unpopular.

"BBD will not be joining us again."

A pity, but understandable given the way his posting has changed since he "came out". I went to the Chris Colose article he referred to and read some of the comments to which Chris replied. Do you know that Chris highly recommended SkS to his readers! Quel surprise!

"You are one of the biggest fruit loops I have ever encountered, on or off the internet."

What an awful thing to say, what has that added to anything? You're clearly distressed at the exile, but there really isn't any need for this sort of thing. Shame on you.