You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

GreenMan wrote:
Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

Simple. The experiment as described is flawed.

GreenMan wrote:
Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

The only ones attempting to violate the 2nd LoT and the Stefan Boltzmann law is the Church of Global Warming, which you are a member of.

There is no Church of AGW Denial, since theories of science are not a circular argument.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

Simple. The experiment as described is flawed.

GreenMan wrote:
Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

The only ones attempting to violate the 2nd LoT and the Stefan Boltzmann law is the Church of Global Warming, which you are a member of.

There is no Church of AGW Denial, since theories of science are not a circular argument.

...deleted insults...
No Professor, the Global Warming Theory does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, nor does it violate the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

GreenMan wrote:
It clearly says that the air should get warmer than the ground, because of additional heat the air receives from the warming of Greenhouse Gases by earth's long-wave infrared radiation.

GreenMan wrote:
And all anyone has o do to prove it is repeat that same experiment.

GreenMan wrote:
Measure the air temperature at the ground, and then measure the air temperature a few feet above ground. Note the difference.

If the air a few feet above the ground is warmer, then it is heating the ground.
If the air a few feet above the ground is cooler, then it is cooling the ground. Simple experiment that anyone can do. And you can find the results of this experiment on the Internet [which is working against you, it's not just in your mind].

GreenMan wrote:
So go on with your ridiculous argument that you can't cook coffee with ice. We all know that.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

Simple. The experiment as described is flawed.

GreenMan wrote:
Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

The only ones attempting to violate the 2nd LoT and the Stefan Boltzmann law is the Church of Global Warming, which you are a member of.

There is no Church of AGW Denial, since theories of science are not a circular argument.

...deleted insults...
No Professor, the Global Warming Theory does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, nor does it violate the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

Yes it does.

GreenMan wrote:
It clearly says that the air should get warmer than the ground, because of additional heat the air receives from the warming of Greenhouse Gases by earth's long-wave infrared radiation.

Your model is reducing Earth's radiance and increasing the temperature at the same time. You can't do that.

The air is generally not warmer than the ground.

GreenMan wrote:
And all anyone has o do to prove it is repeat that same experiment.

Including the same flaws?

GreenMan wrote:
Measure the air temperature at the ground, and then measure the air temperature a few feet above ground. Note the difference.

If the air a few feet above the ground is warmer, then it is heating the ground.
If the air a few feet above the ground is cooler, then it is cooling the ground. Simple experiment that anyone can do. And you can find the results of this experiment on the Internet [which is working against you, it's not just in your mind].

Have fun.

GreenMan wrote:
So go on with your ridiculous argument that you can't cook coffee with ice. We all know that.

Apparently YOU don't!

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

Simple. The experiment as described is flawed.

GreenMan wrote:
Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

The only ones attempting to violate the 2nd LoT and the Stefan Boltzmann law is the Church of Global Warming, which you are a member of.

There is no Church of AGW Denial, since theories of science are not a circular argument.

...deleted insults...
No Professor, the Global Warming Theory does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, nor does it violate the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

Yes it does.

GreenMan wrote:
It clearly says that the air should get warmer than the ground, because of additional heat the air receives from the warming of Greenhouse Gases by earth's long-wave infrared radiation.

Your model is reducing Earth's radiance and increasing the temperature at the same time. You can't do that.

The air is generally not warmer than the ground.

GreenMan wrote:
And all anyone has o do to prove it is repeat that same experiment.

Including the same flaws?

GreenMan wrote:
Measure the air temperature at the ground, and then measure the air temperature a few feet above ground. Note the difference.

If the air a few feet above the ground is warmer, then it is heating the ground.
If the air a few feet above the ground is cooler, then it is cooling the ground. Simple experiment that anyone can do. And you can find the results of this experiment on the Internet [which is working against you, it's not just in your mind].

Have fun.

GreenMan wrote:
So go on with your ridiculous argument that you can't cook coffee with ice. We all know that.

Apparently YOU don't!

I think I spotted the flaw in your understanding of how the Greenhouse Effect actually works. You think that if a gas molecule absorbs earth's infrared radiance that it is reducing the earth's radiance. But it's not. The earth still radiates just as much, regardless of greenhouse gas concentration. Less radiation makes it into space, but that doesn't violate any of you laws, because the earth is still emitting what it should.

GreenMan wrote:
You said, "The air is generally not warmer than the ground." And that means that you know for sure that the air is sometimes warmer than the ground. I suppose you think that is because warmer air moved in from somewhere else.

GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps it came in from over the ocean, where all that heat from the ocean warmed it up.

GreenMan wrote:
Wait a minute, all what heat from the ocean?

GreenMan wrote:
How does the air over the ocean heat?

GreenMan wrote:
And how does it ever warm up after the snow falls?

GreenMan wrote:
Shouldn't we have to wait until the sun melts all the snow, before it starts getting warmer in spring?

GreenMan wrote:
Could you please explain these things, without the use of some force that heats the air except conduction from the ground or ocean?

GreenMan wrote:
1) Air over the ocean is easily understood to be warmer than the surface of the ocean.

GreenMan wrote:
2) Air begins to warm above 32F when Spring comes, and it doesn't wait for all the snow to melt first.

GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking it would be easier for you to just give up, because your distractions aren't going to get you out of this one.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

Simple. The experiment as described is flawed.

GreenMan wrote:
Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

The only ones attempting to violate the 2nd LoT and the Stefan Boltzmann law is the Church of Global Warming, which you are a member of.

There is no Church of AGW Denial, since theories of science are not a circular argument.

...deleted insults...
No Professor, the Global Warming Theory does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, nor does it violate the Stefan Boltzmann Law.

Yes it does.

GreenMan wrote:
It clearly says that the air should get warmer than the ground, because of additional heat the air receives from the warming of Greenhouse Gases by earth's long-wave infrared radiation.

Your model is reducing Earth's radiance and increasing the temperature at the same time. You can't do that.

The air is generally not warmer than the ground.

GreenMan wrote:
And all anyone has o do to prove it is repeat that same experiment.

Including the same flaws?

GreenMan wrote:
Measure the air temperature at the ground, and then measure the air temperature a few feet above ground. Note the difference.

If the air a few feet above the ground is warmer, then it is heating the ground.
If the air a few feet above the ground is cooler, then it is cooling the ground. Simple experiment that anyone can do. And you can find the results of this experiment on the Internet [which is working against you, it's not just in your mind].

Have fun.

GreenMan wrote:
So go on with your ridiculous argument that you can't cook coffee with ice. We all know that.

Apparently YOU don't!

I think I spotted the flaw in your understanding of how the Greenhouse Effect actually works. You think that if a gas molecule absorbs earth's infrared radiance that it is reducing the earth's radiance. But it's not. The earth still radiates just as much, regardless of greenhouse gas concentration. Less radiation makes it into space, but that doesn't violate any of you laws, because the earth is still emitting what it should.

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude? Does the same radiation make it into space or does less radiation make it into space?

GreenMan wrote:
You said, "The air is generally not warmer than the ground." And that means that you know for sure that the air is sometimes warmer than the ground. I suppose you think that is because warmer air moved in from somewhere else.

Yup. We often call that a warm front.

GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps it came in from over the ocean, where all that heat from the ocean warmed it up.

Perhaps.

GreenMan wrote:
Wait a minute, all what heat from the ocean?

Yeah. Ocean water is warmed by the Sun, you know.

GreenMan wrote:
How does the air over the ocean heat?

Warmed ocean water.

GreenMan wrote:
And how does it ever warm up after the snow falls?

By two ways: Snow directly absorbs energy from the Sun, or warmer air can move in from somewhere else and melt the snow.

GreenMan wrote:
Shouldn't we have to wait until the sun melts all the snow, before it starts getting warmer in spring?

Haven't you noticed that? Maybe Spring seemed like such a long time ago for you.

GreenMan wrote:
Could you please explain these things, without the use of some force that heats the air except conduction from the ground or ocean?

No.

GreenMan wrote:
1) Air over the ocean is easily understood to be warmer than the surface of the ocean.

No.

GreenMan wrote:
2) Air begins to warm above 32F when Spring comes, and it doesn't wait for all the snow to melt first.

Usually because warmer air moved in from somewhere else.

GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking it would be easier for you to just give up, because your distractions aren't going to get you out of this one.

What distractions?

GreenMan wrote:
Have you ever been in a boat out on the ocean Professor Parrot Face?

GreenMan wrote:
Did you not notice that the air was warmer than the water?

GreenMan wrote:
Maybe that was because you were too scared to stick your hand down in the water.

GreenMan wrote:
But believe it or not, on a warm sunny day, the air above the ocean water is warmer than the water. Any moron knows that.

GreenMan wrote:
And it doesn't matter how far you get away from land.

GreenMan wrote:
The air temperature will drop some as you get further out, but it will stay above the temperature of the water during daylight hours.

GreenMan wrote:
Would you like to deny that also?

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Have you ever been in a boat out on the ocean Professor Parrot Face?

Of course I have. I happen to live in the Pacific Northwest. We mess around in boats on the ocean all the time.

GreenMan wrote:
Did you not notice that the air was warmer than the water?

Nope.

GreenMan wrote:
Maybe that was because you were too scared to stick your hand down in the water.

Usually I enjoy swimming in it instead.

GreenMan wrote:
But believe it or not, on a warm sunny day, the air above the ocean water is warmer than the water. Any moron knows that.

Nope.

GreenMan wrote:
And it doesn't matter how far you get away from land.

True.

GreenMan wrote:
The air temperature will drop some as you get further out, but it will stay above the temperature of the water during daylight hours.

Nope.

GreenMan wrote:
Would you like to deny that also?

Why not? The air is warmed by the top layers of ocean water, after they have been warmed by the Sun.

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality.

James_ wrote:
Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done.

James_ wrote:
If there is no gravity then there is no mass.

James_ wrote:
Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

Into the Night wrote:

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

I have not said anything that does not conform to the laws of physics.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Have you ever been in a boat out on the ocean Professor Parrot Face?

Of course I have. I happen to live in the Pacific Northwest. We mess around in boats on the ocean all the time.

GreenMan wrote:
Did you not notice that the air was warmer than the water?

Nope.

GreenMan wrote:
Maybe that was because you were too scared to stick your hand down in the water.

Usually I enjoy swimming in it instead.

GreenMan wrote:
But believe it or not, on a warm sunny day, the air above the ocean water is warmer than the water. Any moron knows that.

Nope.

GreenMan wrote:
And it doesn't matter how far you get away from land.

True.

GreenMan wrote:
The air temperature will drop some as you get further out, but it will stay above the temperature of the water during daylight hours.

Nope.

GreenMan wrote:
Would you like to deny that also?

Why not? The air is warmed by the top layers of ocean water, after they have been warmed by the Sun.

So you have never jumped in the water to cool off, since on a 95F day the water temperature would be above that. Is that what you are saying?

GreenMan wrote:
Most people know that the ocean water is cooler than the air past mid day when the sun is peaking and just after. So they know you are lying.

GreenMan wrote:
And it doesn't matter how much data I present that proves it, you will just claim the data is flawed.

GreenMan wrote:
So it just goes on and on with you. Such a waste of air you are.

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
A major rebuttal that one of our master debaters uses quite regularly to dispute the existence of Greenhouse Gases or that they cause the earth to get warmer is he claims the air is only heated by thermal energy from the ground.

If that is so, then the air should get cooler as it gets further away from the ground, due to convection. However, if you perform a simple experiment, which was done by a man named David Cook, you will find that the air is actually warmer as you move further away from the ground [for a while]. His experiment shows that the air about 2 feet off the ground is actually quite a bit warmer than the air at ground level.


http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

This chart shows the results of David Cook's observations. Notice that the air temperature about 2 feet off the ground [brown line] is always warmer than the air at ground level [blue line], and often over 20F warmer, throughout the entire month of September.

This is an easy experiment that anyone can do, so it is not likely that the data gained is erroneous, or intended to deliberately mislead people.

In my opinion, David Cook's observations prove beyond a doubt that the air is being warmed by some other force besides through conduction of heat from the ground, as proposed by the master debater, who prides himself in eliminating Church of Global Warming Parrots.

I call him Professor Parrot Face, because he is quite knowledgeable, but does not realize that he looks like a Parrot also, just one for the Church of AGW Denial.

So I challenge you Into the Night [that's opposed to into the Light], aka Parrot Killer, to explain how the air a couple of feet above ground is warmer than the air at ground level, constantly through the month of September, during daylight hours.

Or shut up with your BS about people breaking your favorite Laws, because they aren't. They are heating the ground with a warmer, not colder gas.

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

That's right, as far as I know. The earth has to absorb some thermal energy or the ground temperature would never change.

GreenMan wrote:
It would always follow the increase and decrease of energy due to the Milankovitch Effect.

GreenMan wrote:
But it doesn't do that, so we know there is something else that causes the ground to warm more or less each year.

GreenMan wrote:
And being a black body, the earth must emit radiation based on its temperature ^4, which is the same amount I used in my Climate Model to account for Greenhouse Gas concentrations and their affect on the average global temperature.

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

I have not said anything that does not conform to the laws of physics.

Into the Night,
Am tired of your mind games.

James_ wrote:
Mass just exists as you say conforms to the laws of physics.

James_ wrote:
I thought Wake was bad with his "you have to agree with me because the climate doesn't change" but he's not even close to your seeking a universal truth or preaching it in a climate debate forum.

James_ wrote:
Any more the Vatican accepts that there is a science outside of the Bible.

James_ wrote:
Maybe you should think about it.


Bye

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

A covalent bond is created when molecules share outer electrons.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Do tell, Professor Parrot Face. Since no one really knows what causes gravity. Einstein thought it was the result of a space time thing, or "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass." He couldn't separate it from mass either.
Don't let covalent bonding being a "chemical bond," fool you. It's more electrical than chemical, since what's going on is the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge. Electrical charges generate magnetism, or gravity if it's an electro-chemical charge.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

Well actually, yes we do know that you can't have one without the other, because if you don't have mass, you can't possibly have gravity. What is it that you would be attracting? If you have no mass, then there is nothing to attract. All mass has gravity. All gravity has some mass behind it. They are inseparable.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

A covalent bond is created when molecules share outer electrons.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Do tell, Professor Parrot Face. Since no one really knows what causes gravity. Einstein thought it was the result of a space time thing, or "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass." He couldn't separate it from mass either.
Don't let covalent bonding being a "chemical bond," fool you. It's more electrical than chemical, since what's going on is the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge. Electrical charges generate magnetism, or gravity if it's an electro-chemical charge.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

Well actually, yes we do know that you can't have one without the other, because if you don't have mass, you can't possibly have gravity. What is it that you would be attracting? If you have no mass, then there is nothing to attract. All mass has gravity. All gravity has some mass behind it. They are inseparable.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

A covalent bond is created when molecules share outer electrons.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Do tell, Professor Parrot Face. Since no one really knows what causes gravity. Einstein thought it was the result of a space time thing, or "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass." He couldn't separate it from mass either.
Don't let covalent bonding being a "chemical bond," fool you. It's more electrical than chemical, since what's going on is the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge. Electrical charges generate magnetism, or gravity if it's an electro-chemical charge.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

Well actually, yes we do know that you can't have one without the other, because if you don't have mass, you can't possibly have gravity. What is it that you would be attracting? If you have no mass, then there is nothing to attract. All mass has gravity. All gravity has some mass behind it. They are inseparable.

Tell us stupid - what is gravity? What is it composed of?

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

A covalent bond is created when molecules share outer electrons.

Okay. You have now demonstrated you have no idea what force holds molecules together.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Do tell, Professor Parrot Face. Since no one really knows what causes gravity. Einstein thought it was the result of a space time thing, or "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass." He couldn't separate it from mass either.
Don't let covalent bonding being a "chemical bond," fool you. It's more electrical than chemical, since what's going on is the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge. Electrical charges generate magnetism, or gravity if it's an electro-chemical charge.

Magnetism is not gravity. It is part of the electromagnetic force.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

Well actually, yes we do know that you can't have one without the other, because if you don't have mass, you can't possibly have gravity. What is it that you would be attracting? If you have no mass, then there is nothing to attract. All mass has gravity. All gravity has some mass behind it. They are inseparable.

You are just repeating yourself without presenting a counter argument. Argument of the Stone...a fallacy.

GreenMan wrote: It's that stuff that holds your ass to the couch, idiot. Well, that and a lot of free will on your part. Your legs can overcome gravity, if you want them to. At least enough to get your ass up off the couch.

As far as I know, nobody knows what it's composed of. Energy? What kind of energy? Where does that energy come from? It goes circular quickly, because it comes from objects with mass. But I think your brainiac friend, Professor Parrot Face thinks he knows how to separate two.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

A covalent bond is created when molecules share outer electrons.

Okay. You have now demonstrated you have no idea what force holds molecules together.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Do tell, Professor Parrot Face. Since no one really knows what causes gravity. Einstein thought it was the result of a space time thing, or "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass." He couldn't separate it from mass either.
Don't let covalent bonding being a "chemical bond," fool you. It's more electrical than chemical, since what's going on is the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge. Electrical charges generate magnetism, or gravity if it's an electro-chemical charge.

Magnetism is not gravity. It is part of the electromagnetic force.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

Well actually, yes we do know that you can't have one without the other, because if you don't have mass, you can't possibly have gravity. What is it that you would be attracting? If you have no mass, then there is nothing to attract. All mass has gravity. All gravity has some mass behind it. They are inseparable.

You are just repeating yourself without presenting a counter argument. Argument of the Stone...a fallacy.

Well we have your opinion, that it's a chemical bond. It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

A covalent bond is created when molecules share outer electrons.

Okay. You have now demonstrated you have no idea what force holds molecules together.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Do tell, Professor Parrot Face. Since no one really knows what causes gravity. Einstein thought it was the result of a space time thing, or "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass." He couldn't separate it from mass either.
Don't let covalent bonding being a "chemical bond," fool you. It's more electrical than chemical, since what's going on is the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge. Electrical charges generate magnetism, or gravity if it's an electro-chemical charge.

Magnetism is not gravity. It is part of the electromagnetic force.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

Well actually, yes we do know that you can't have one without the other, because if you don't have mass, you can't possibly have gravity. What is it that you would be attracting? If you have no mass, then there is nothing to attract. All mass has gravity. All gravity has some mass behind it. They are inseparable.

You are just repeating yourself without presenting a counter argument. Argument of the Stone...a fallacy.

Well we have your opinion, that it's a chemical bond. It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Okay. So you not only don't understand physics, statistics, probability, random numbers, philosophy, and formal logic, you don't understand anything about electricity or chemistry either.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

A covalent bond is created when molecules share outer electrons.

Okay. You have now demonstrated you have no idea what force holds molecules together.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Do tell, Professor Parrot Face. Since no one really knows what causes gravity. Einstein thought it was the result of a space time thing, or "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass." He couldn't separate it from mass either.
Don't let covalent bonding being a "chemical bond," fool you. It's more electrical than chemical, since what's going on is the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge. Electrical charges generate magnetism, or gravity if it's an electro-chemical charge.

Magnetism is not gravity. It is part of the electromagnetic force.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

Well actually, yes we do know that you can't have one without the other, because if you don't have mass, you can't possibly have gravity. What is it that you would be attracting? If you have no mass, then there is nothing to attract. All mass has gravity. All gravity has some mass behind it. They are inseparable.

You are just repeating yourself without presenting a counter argument. Argument of the Stone...a fallacy.

Well we have your opinion, that it's a chemical bond. It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Okay. So you not only don't understand physics, statistics, probability, random numbers, philosophy, and formal logic, you don't understand anything about electricity or chemistry either.

Actually, I make quite a comfortable living with my knowledge of controlling electricity. But I don't claim to be an expert in any other area.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Okay. So you not only don't understand physics, statistics, probability, random numbers, philosophy, and formal logic, you don't understand anything about electricity or chemistry either.

Actually, I make quite a comfortable living with my knowledge of controlling electricity. But I don't claim to be an expert in any other area.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Okay. So you not only don't understand physics, statistics, probability, random numbers, philosophy, and formal logic, you don't understand anything about electricity or chemistry either.

Actually, I make quite a comfortable living with my knowledge of controlling electricity. But I don't claim to be an expert in any other area.

How? You don't know anything about electricity.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Okay. So you not only don't understand physics, statistics, probability, random numbers, philosophy, and formal logic, you don't understand anything about electricity or chemistry either.

Actually, I make quite a comfortable living with my knowledge of controlling electricity. But I don't claim to be an expert in any other area.

How? You don't know anything about electricity.

And he thinks that magnetism and gravity are cousins.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

A covalent bond is created when molecules share outer electrons.

Okay. You have now demonstrated you have no idea what force holds molecules together.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Do tell, Professor Parrot Face. Since no one really knows what causes gravity. Einstein thought it was the result of a space time thing, or "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass." He couldn't separate it from mass either.
Don't let covalent bonding being a "chemical bond," fool you. It's more electrical than chemical, since what's going on is the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge. Electrical charges generate magnetism, or gravity if it's an electro-chemical charge.

Magnetism is not gravity. It is part of the electromagnetic force.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

Well actually, yes we do know that you can't have one without the other, because if you don't have mass, you can't possibly have gravity. What is it that you would be attracting? If you have no mass, then there is nothing to attract. All mass has gravity. All gravity has some mass behind it. They are inseparable.

You are just repeating yourself without presenting a counter argument. Argument of the Stone...a fallacy.

Well we have your opinion, that it's a chemical bond. It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Okay. So you not only don't understand physics, statistics, probability, random numbers, philosophy, and formal logic, you don't understand anything about electricity or chemistry either.

Actually, I make quite a comfortable living with my knowledge of controlling electricity. But I don't claim to be an expert in any other area.

Electricians do not "control" electricity. And your lying about not claiming to be an expert in anything else makes us wonder why you tell us about "modeling" the climate.

You can't even see yourself for what you are.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Okay. So you not only don't understand physics, statistics, probability, random numbers, philosophy, and formal logic, you don't understand anything about electricity or chemistry either.

Actually, I make quite a comfortable living with my knowledge of controlling electricity. But I don't claim to be an expert in any other area.

How? You don't know anything about electricity.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Okay. So you not only don't understand physics, statistics, probability, random numbers, philosophy, and formal logic, you don't understand anything about electricity or chemistry either.

Actually, I make quite a comfortable living with my knowledge of controlling electricity. But I don't claim to be an expert in any other area.

How? You don't know anything about electricity.

And he thinks that magnetism and gravity are cousins.

Maybe he's thinking of heavy transformers.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

I've mentioned before that the experiment that you are referring to suggests that the ground is in fact absorbing thermal radiation. and as a black body that exists as the result of gravity nothing says it has to emit more energy than it absorbs. :-)

Mass does not exist as a result of gravity. It just exists.

Gravity exists as a result of mass.

ITN,
This is another example of you limiting science with your spirituality. Mass and gravity can not be separated as you have done. If there is no gravity then there is no mass. Yet when you say something is yet does not conform to the laws of physics you are obligated to explain your reasoning.

It looks like Professor Parrot Face ignores anything that doesn't fit into his version of reality.

Ah...another word you can't define, and another typical tactic used by the members of the Church of Global Warming when they are losing any other way of attacking an argument.

GreenMan wrote:
For example, he ignores that there is some force that holds molecules together.

Do you know what that force is?? Probably not.

A covalent bond is created when molecules share outer electrons.

Okay. You have now demonstrated you have no idea what force holds molecules together.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And he ignores that we really don't know what causes gravity, though I'm sure he has some kind of theory that he goes with, that doesn't involve it being an extension of the the bond that holds molecules together.

Gravity is not caused by chemical bonds.

Do tell, Professor Parrot Face. Since no one really knows what causes gravity. Einstein thought it was the result of a space time thing, or "a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass." He couldn't separate it from mass either.
Don't let covalent bonding being a "chemical bond," fool you. It's more electrical than chemical, since what's going on is the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge. Electrical charges generate magnetism, or gravity if it's an electro-chemical charge.

Magnetism is not gravity. It is part of the electromagnetic force.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it stands to reason that mass and gravity cannot be separated, because they rely on each other. You can't have one, without the other.

You don't know that.

So far as we know, they are two completely separate things, one being energy, the other being matter. We really don't know if you can have one without the other. We just assume, for the moment, that you can't.

Well actually, yes we do know that you can't have one without the other, because if you don't have mass, you can't possibly have gravity. What is it that you would be attracting? If you have no mass, then there is nothing to attract. All mass has gravity. All gravity has some mass behind it. They are inseparable.

You are just repeating yourself without presenting a counter argument. Argument of the Stone...a fallacy.

Well we have your opinion, that it's a chemical bond. It's called a covalent body, you idiot. And it is the result of molecules sharing electrons. And it is referred to as a chemical bond. Even though it is produced by the sharing of electrons, which have an electrical charge.

And yes, I know that magnetism and gravity are different things. I think they are cousins.

Okay. So you not only don't understand physics, statistics, probability, random numbers, philosophy, and formal logic, you don't understand anything about electricity or chemistry either.

Actually, I make quite a comfortable living with my knowledge of controlling electricity. But I don't claim to be an expert in any other area.

Electricians do not "control" electricity. And your lying about not claiming to be an expert in anything else makes us wonder why you tell us about "modeling" the climate.

You can't even see yourself for what you are.

I'm no an electrician, fruit loop. I'm a Controls Engineer, or Electrical Controls Engineer. And most electricians know quite a lot about electricity, by the way. I began my career as an electrician, 38 years ago. It didn't take long to realize that those guys designing control system didn't know what they were doing, because everything kept crashing. So I got to learn how to make modifications to control code. Went from there to designing complete systems, and even managing teams of others who designed huge spread out integrated systems [which is what i work on now].

Everything I do professionally, is about controlling electricity. Well, there's some pneumatic and hydraulic controls from time to time also.

It was my temperature control experience that helped the most with figuring out the drivers behind our climate. And knowing how to use Excel to produce a spreadsheet helpful also.

Now what was that you said you did that helped you misunderstand the planet's climate? Didn't you say you worked on a mass spectrometer? I don't understand how that relates to knowing anything about the weather, or climate, or Greenhouse Gases. Isn't a mass spectrometer what they use to see what's in a solution? Like for doing drug screens?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I'm no an electrician, fruit loop. I'm a Controls Engineer, or Electrical Controls Engineer. And most electricians know quite a lot about electricity, by the way. I began my career as an electrician, 38 years ago. It didn't take long to realize that those guys designing control system didn't know what they were doing, because everything kept crashing. So I got to learn how to make modifications to control code. Went from there to designing complete systems, and even managing teams of others who designed huge spread out integrated systems [which is what i work on now].

Everything I do professionally, is about controlling electricity. Well, there's some pneumatic and hydraulic controls from time to time also.

It was my temperature control experience that helped the most with figuring out the drivers behind our climate. And knowing how to use Excel to produce a spreadsheet helpful also.

Now what was that you said you did that helped you misunderstand the planet's climate? Didn't you say you worked on a mass spectrometer? I don't understand how that relates to knowing anything about the weather, or climate, or Greenhouse Gases. Isn't a mass spectrometer what they use to see what's in a solution? Like for doing drug screens?

A "controls engineer" determines how many light switches will be required in a building. They determine how large a rheostat to use on an electric heater or a motor drive. Exactly who do you think that you're kidding?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I'm no an electrician, fruit loop. I'm a Controls Engineer, or Electrical Controls Engineer. And most electricians know quite a lot about electricity, by the way. I began my career as an electrician, 38 years ago. It didn't take long to realize that those guys designing control system didn't know what they were doing, because everything kept crashing. So I got to learn how to make modifications to control code. Went from there to designing complete systems, and even managing teams of others who designed huge spread out integrated systems [which is what i work on now].

Everything I do professionally, is about controlling electricity. Well, there's some pneumatic and hydraulic controls from time to time also.

It was my temperature control experience that helped the most with figuring out the drivers behind our climate. And knowing how to use Excel to produce a spreadsheet helpful also.

Now what was that you said you did that helped you misunderstand the planet's climate? Didn't you say you worked on a mass spectrometer? I don't understand how that relates to knowing anything about the weather, or climate, or Greenhouse Gases. Isn't a mass spectrometer what they use to see what's in a solution? Like for doing drug screens?

A "controls engineer" determines how many light switches will be required in a building. They determine how large a rheostat to use on an electric heater or a motor drive. Exactly who do you think that you're kidding?

Himself. He thinks mentioning a mass spectrometer somehow makes him smart. They guy is just buzzwords. He apparently doesn't even know what a mass spectrometer does.

I haven't used Excel in decades. I had no need of it when designing systems.

He sounds like some unsuccessful electrician or possibly some HVAC guy that turned into a straw boss somewhere because he couldn't figure out electricity.

He probably couldn't code his way out of a wet paper bag. I wonder what computer language he's going to claim to know.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I'm no an electrician, fruit loop. I'm a Controls Engineer, or Electrical Controls Engineer. And most electricians know quite a lot about electricity, by the way. I began my career as an electrician, 38 years ago. It didn't take long to realize that those guys designing control system didn't know what they were doing, because everything kept crashing. So I got to learn how to make modifications to control code. Went from there to designing complete systems, and even managing teams of others who designed huge spread out integrated systems [which is what i work on now].

Everything I do professionally, is about controlling electricity. Well, there's some pneumatic and hydraulic controls from time to time also.

It was my temperature control experience that helped the most with figuring out the drivers behind our climate. And knowing how to use Excel to produce a spreadsheet helpful also.

Now what was that you said you did that helped you misunderstand the planet's climate? Didn't you say you worked on a mass spectrometer? I don't understand how that relates to knowing anything about the weather, or climate, or Greenhouse Gases. Isn't a mass spectrometer what they use to see what's in a solution? Like for doing drug screens?

A "controls engineer" determines how many light switches will be required in a building. They determine how large a rheostat to use on an electric heater or a motor drive. Exactly who do you think that you're kidding?

Himself. He thinks mentioning a mass spectrometer somehow makes him smart. They guy is just buzzwords. He apparently doesn't even know what a mass spectrometer does.

I haven't used Excel in decades. I had no need of it when designing systems.

He sounds like some unsuccessful electrician or possibly some HVAC guy that turned into a straw boss somewhere because he couldn't figure out electricity.

He probably couldn't code his way out of a wet paper bag. I wonder what computer language he's going to claim to know.

It's especially painful to see him using these words when I designed and programmed both gas and liquid spectrometers. It is easy to look at a series of lines on a graph and think that they mean something but it's another thing altogether to know what they mean.

This was why I was making such a big deal out of the absorption spectrum of CO2. It is so limited compared to H2O that it's preposterous to use it as any sort of "greenhouse gas". H2O totally drowns out all but one of CO2's absorption lines and that line is in a region where there isn't any energy. So little that this line is totally saturated by very low levels of CO2 - around 200 ppm or lower.

Remember that this region ONLY is exuded from land and not water which absorbs most of the Sun's energy and emits in the VERY low IR - far below the absorption lines of CO2.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I'm no an electrician, fruit loop. I'm a Controls Engineer, or Electrical Controls Engineer. And most electricians know quite a lot about electricity, by the way. I began my career as an electrician, 38 years ago. It didn't take long to realize that those guys designing control system didn't know what they were doing, because everything kept crashing. So I got to learn how to make modifications to control code. Went from there to designing complete systems, and even managing teams of others who designed huge spread out integrated systems [which is what i work on now].

Everything I do professionally, is about controlling electricity. Well, there's some pneumatic and hydraulic controls from time to time also.

It was my temperature control experience that helped the most with figuring out the drivers behind our climate. And knowing how to use Excel to produce a spreadsheet helpful also.

Now what was that you said you did that helped you misunderstand the planet's climate? Didn't you say you worked on a mass spectrometer? I don't understand how that relates to knowing anything about the weather, or climate, or Greenhouse Gases. Isn't a mass spectrometer what they use to see what's in a solution? Like for doing drug screens?

A "controls engineer" determines how many light switches will be required in a building. They determine how large a rheostat to use on an electric heater or a motor drive. Exactly who do you think that you're kidding?

Himself. He thinks mentioning a mass spectrometer somehow makes him smart. They guy is just buzzwords. He apparently doesn't even know what a mass spectrometer does.

I haven't used Excel in decades. I had no need of it when designing systems.

He sounds like some unsuccessful electrician or possibly some HVAC guy that turned into a straw boss somewhere because he couldn't figure out electricity.

He probably couldn't code his way out of a wet paper bag. I wonder what computer language he's going to claim to know.

It's especially painful to see him using these words when I designed and programmed both gas and liquid spectrometers. It is easy to look at a series of lines on a graph and think that they mean something but it's another thing altogether to know what they mean.

This was why I was making such a big deal out of the absorption spectrum of CO2. It is so limited compared to H2O that it's preposterous to use it as any sort of "greenhouse gas". H2O totally drowns out all but one of CO2's absorption lines and that line is in a region where there isn't any energy. So little that this line is totally saturated by very low levels of CO2 - around 200 ppm or lower.

Remember that this region ONLY is exuded from land and not water which absorbs most of the Sun's energy and emits in the VERY low IR - far below the absorption lines of CO2.

And here is where we have our primary difference. I contend that the absorption spectra doesn't mean anything, even if that absorption spectra happens to cross into the infrared region.

It is just another for the surface to heat the atmosphere. It is no different then by conduction. It's just a fancy way of doing it.

As you know, convection tends to take care of the rest, as far as the atmosphere goes.

Another primary difference that you and I have is that most of the energy leaving the Earth is from radiance from the surface, not the atmosphere. We also differ on the energy profile of the atmosphere, since you tend to confuse that with the temperature profile.