Greenhouse Effect and the 1909 Wood's Experiment

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
That's because the surface of the earth his quite cold, compared to the air just above it.

Wrong. The surface of the Earth is warmer than the air just above it. Not a lot, but just a bit. The reason is because the surface is heating the air just above it by conduction.

Nope, you can't heat the air with a surface that is cooler than the air. Try this little experiment. Stick a thermometer into the ground. Sunny or shaded spot. Read the temperature of the ground. Now pull the thermometer out of the dirt, and let it read the air temperature.

The ground should read close to 15C. The air should read whatever the temperature is for that day, and it will likely be higher, unless it is winter.

Earth is a very good insulator simply via large mass. But it absorbs almost the entire spectrum of energy from the Sun. So the top quarter inch or so is warmed normally higher than the air above it and heats that air.

Exactly. That's why people build stone or adobe houses. Before there was air conditioning, these dwellings worked pretty well (they still do).

That's because they are cool in the summer [cooler than the air, naturally], and easy to warm in the winter [warmer than the air, naturally].

The ground is cooler than the air.

Only if warmer air happens to move in. In general the air is cooler than the surface.

GreenMan wrote:
Why do you think dogs lay on the ground?

Because they want to be near their master and they are tired of standing all the time.

If they can find a cold piece of ground in a shade of some kind, they will flatten their bellies to help cool off. Apparently a dog knows more about conductive heating than you do.

GreenMan wrote:
Because it's cooler than if they climbed a tree.

Trees are actually cooler. You don't have to be far away from the ground to see a remarkable drop in temperature in places like the desert. Most desert critters used buried homes for the same reason as we use stone or adobe for our homes. Some do find it just fine in the trees (what few there are) though.

GreenMan wrote:
But don't take my word for it. Take your barbecue thermometer to the yard. Stick it in the ground a few inches. Read the temperature. Then pull it out of the ground, read the temperature.

BBQ thermometers don't read that range of temperatures.

GreenMan wrote:
Or, if you can read the top quarter inch or so, without reading the air temperature, then do that. It's close to the same an inch or two below the surface, due to conduction.

Not the same, not even an inch down. Any desert rat knows that.

Here you go, Professor Parrot Face.

"The ground is cooler in summer and warmer in winter than the air above it."

...deleted Holy Link...

That is a quote from Scientific American, from an article talking about ground temperature. I suggest you go read it before you make a fool out of your brainiac self somewhere else. Of course, you can also claim conspiracy if you want, and say that all the scientists on the planet are working against you, lol.

GreenMan wrote:
According to the guys who study such as this, the air absorbs very little of the sun's radiation. It's the earth's radiation that the air is being warmed from. And not just through conduction and convection. Also through conversion of longwave earth ir into thermal energy.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
According to the guys who study such as this, the air absorbs very little of the sun's radiation. It's the earth's radiation that the air is being warmed from. And not just through conduction and convection. Also through conversion of longwave earth ir into thermal energy.

Why are you now doing an about face and claiming exactly the opposite of what you were previously saying?

Wake wrote:
Secondly - again you are showing your almost unfathomable ignorance about "thermal energy"? This is nothing but heat.

Wake wrote:
Do you think that using the term "thermal energy" instead of "heat" that you can impress people?

Into the Night wrote: Thermal energy is not heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Thermal energy is not heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.

"Thermal energy is the energy that comes from heat. This heat is generated by the movement of tiny particles within an object. The faster these particles move, the more heat is generated."

Do you have that? Heat flow is the transference of thermal energy and not the other way around.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
That's because the surface of the earth his quite cold, compared to the air just above it.

Wrong. The surface of the Earth is warmer than the air just above it. Not a lot, but just a bit. The reason is because the surface is heating the air just above it by conduction.

Nope, you can't heat the air with a surface that is cooler than the air. Try this little experiment. Stick a thermometer into the ground. Sunny or shaded spot. Read the temperature of the ground. Now pull the thermometer out of the dirt, and let it read the air temperature.

The ground should read close to 15C. The air should read whatever the temperature is for that day, and it will likely be higher, unless it is winter.

Earth is a very good insulator simply via large mass. But it absorbs almost the entire spectrum of energy from the Sun. So the top quarter inch or so is warmed normally higher than the air above it and heats that air.

Exactly. That's why people build stone or adobe houses. Before there was air conditioning, these dwellings worked pretty well (they still do).

That's because they are cool in the summer [cooler than the air, naturally], and easy to warm in the winter [warmer than the air, naturally].

The ground is cooler than the air.

Only if warmer air happens to move in. In general the air is cooler than the surface.

GreenMan wrote:
Why do you think dogs lay on the ground?

Because they want to be near their master and they are tired of standing all the time.

If they can find a cold piece of ground in a shade of some kind, they will flatten their bellies to help cool off. Apparently a dog knows more about conductive heating than you do.

GreenMan wrote:
Because it's cooler than if they climbed a tree.

Trees are actually cooler. You don't have to be far away from the ground to see a remarkable drop in temperature in places like the desert. Most desert critters used buried homes for the same reason as we use stone or adobe for our homes. Some do find it just fine in the trees (what few there are) though.

GreenMan wrote:
But don't take my word for it. Take your barbecue thermometer to the yard. Stick it in the ground a few inches. Read the temperature. Then pull it out of the ground, read the temperature.

BBQ thermometers don't read that range of temperatures.

GreenMan wrote:
Or, if you can read the top quarter inch or so, without reading the air temperature, then do that. It's close to the same an inch or two below the surface, due to conduction.

Not the same, not even an inch down. Any desert rat knows that.

Here you go, Professor Parrot Face.

"The ground is cooler in summer and warmer in winter than the air above it."

...deleted Holy Link...

That is a quote from Scientific American, from an article talking about ground temperature. I suggest you go read it before you make a fool out of your brainiac self somewhere else. Of course, you can also claim conspiracy if you want, and say that all the scientists on the planet are working against you, lol.

Contextomy. You are quoting out of context of the article.

You should also understand that science isn't a magazine.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
That's because the surface of the earth his quite cold, compared to the air just above it.

Wrong. The surface of the Earth is warmer than the air just above it. Not a lot, but just a bit. The reason is because the surface is heating the air just above it by conduction.

Nope, you can't heat the air with a surface that is cooler than the air. Try this little experiment. Stick a thermometer into the ground. Sunny or shaded spot. Read the temperature of the ground. Now pull the thermometer out of the dirt, and let it read the air temperature.

The ground should read close to 15C. The air should read whatever the temperature is for that day, and it will likely be higher, unless it is winter.

Earth is a very good insulator simply via large mass. But it absorbs almost the entire spectrum of energy from the Sun. So the top quarter inch or so is warmed normally higher than the air above it and heats that air.

Exactly. That's why people build stone or adobe houses. Before there was air conditioning, these dwellings worked pretty well (they still do).

That's because they are cool in the summer [cooler than the air, naturally], and easy to warm in the winter [warmer than the air, naturally].

The ground is cooler than the air.

Only if warmer air happens to move in. In general the air is cooler than the surface.

GreenMan wrote:
Why do you think dogs lay on the ground?

Because they want to be near their master and they are tired of standing all the time.

If they can find a cold piece of ground in a shade of some kind, they will flatten their bellies to help cool off. Apparently a dog knows more about conductive heating than you do.

GreenMan wrote:
Because it's cooler than if they climbed a tree.

Trees are actually cooler. You don't have to be far away from the ground to see a remarkable drop in temperature in places like the desert. Most desert critters used buried homes for the same reason as we use stone or adobe for our homes. Some do find it just fine in the trees (what few there are) though.

GreenMan wrote:
But don't take my word for it. Take your barbecue thermometer to the yard. Stick it in the ground a few inches. Read the temperature. Then pull it out of the ground, read the temperature.

BBQ thermometers don't read that range of temperatures.

GreenMan wrote:
Or, if you can read the top quarter inch or so, without reading the air temperature, then do that. It's close to the same an inch or two below the surface, due to conduction.

Not the same, not even an inch down. Any desert rat knows that.

Here you go, Professor Parrot Face.

"The ground is cooler in summer and warmer in winter than the air above it."

...deleted Holy Link...

That is a quote from Scientific American, from an article talking about ground temperature. I suggest you go read it before you make a fool out of your brainiac self somewhere else. Of course, you can also claim conspiracy if you want, and say that all the scientists on the planet are working against you, lol.

Contextomy. You are quoting out of context of the article.

You should also understand that science isn't a magazine.

No Professor Parrot Face, I wasn't taking it out of context. It was the idiot that got technical and started trying to split molecules between the surface and the ground that took something out of context. I should have just used ground in my statement, instead of surface. But since we want to split molecules on this one, I can go with "surface," which is what the second link was about. That guy actually did a test to measure what the temperature of the air just above the surface. And found that it was lower than the temperature of the air a couple feet up.

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

He simultaneously read the temperature of the air from inside a weather station box 53 cm off the ground, from a probe laying on the ground, and probes down in the ground at various depths. He plotted his findings, which are attached to this message. He clearly shows that the air 20 inches off the ground is a full 8-10F warmer than the air at the surface.

So can you please explain where the warmer air came from? Since it obviously didn't come from below. And it was consistent throughout the month that he was measuring it, so it wasn't just a freak weather pattern that brought in warmer air.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
According to the guys who study such as this, the air absorbs very little of the sun's radiation. It's the earth's radiation that the air is being warmed from. And not just through conduction and convection. Also through conversion of longwave earth ir into thermal energy.

Why are you now doing an about face and claiming exactly the opposite of what you were previously saying?

Secondly - again you are showing your almost unfathomable ignorance about "thermal energy"? This is nothing but heat. Do you think that using the term "thermal energy" instead of "heat" that you can impress people?

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
According to the guys who study such as this, the air absorbs very little of the sun's radiation. It's the earth's radiation that the air is being warmed from. And not just through conduction and convection. Also through conversion of longwave earth ir into thermal energy.

Why are you now doing an about face and claiming exactly the opposite of what you were previously saying?

Secondly - again you are showing your almost unfathomable ignorance about "thermal energy"? This is nothing but heat. Do you think that using the term "thermal energy" instead of "heat" that you can impress people?

I think you must have misunderstood something I said earlier, or are again trying to take what was said out of context. I understand that the energy behind Global Warming is from the earth's ir radiation. Greenhouse gases don't absorb the sun's radiation, because it is short wave ir. It has no affect on Greenhouse gases. It's like a one way mirror. It lets the sun's ir radiation in, but absorbs the earth's ir radiation on the way out.

And yes, I am picking up the terminology a little as we go along. It makes it easier to discuss things with people who know the correct terminology. Sorry if this offends idiots like you, who simply refuse to learn anything new. Not Sorry, I meant, lol. You're a dunce, Wake Me Up.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

No Professor Parrot Face, I wasn't taking it out of context. It was the idiot that got technical and started trying to split molecules between the surface and the ground that took something out of context. I should have just used ground in my statement, instead of surface. But since we want to split molecules on this one, I can go with "surface," which is what the second link was about. That guy actually did a test to measure what the temperature of the air just above the surface. And found that it was lower than the temperature of the air a couple feet up.

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

He simultaneously read the temperature of the air from inside a weather station box 53 cm off the ground, from a probe laying on the ground, and probes down in the ground at various depths. He plotted his findings, which are attached to this message. He clearly shows that the air 20 inches off the ground is a full 8-10F warmer than the air at the surface.

So can you please explain where the warmer air came from? Since it obviously didn't come from below. And it was consistent throughout the month that he was measuring it, so it wasn't just a freak weather pattern that brought in warmer air.

And you are again demonstrating I was correct - you were attempting to use "surface" to mean air above the ground. And your definition of ground was 25 cm or approximately a FOOT underground which is one of the best insulators that naturally occur.

But that doesn't even occur to you does it? You actually believe that the air is absorbing more energy from sunlight than the ground it.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
According to the guys who study such as this, the air absorbs very little of the sun's radiation. It's the earth's radiation that the air is being warmed from. And not just through conduction and convection. Also through conversion of longwave earth ir into thermal energy.

Why are you now doing an about face and claiming exactly the opposite of what you were previously saying?

Secondly - again you are showing your almost unfathomable ignorance about "thermal energy"? This is nothing but heat. Do you think that using the term "thermal energy" instead of "heat" that you can impress people?

I think you must have misunderstood something I said earlier, or are again trying to take what was said out of context.

GreenMan wrote:
I understand that the energy behind Global Warming is from the earth's ir radiation.

GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse gases don't absorb the sun's radiation, because it is short wave ir.

GreenMan wrote:
It has no affect on Greenhouse gases. It's like a one way mirror. It lets the sun's ir radiation in, but absorbs the earth's ir radiation on the way out.

GreenMan wrote:
And yes, I am picking up the terminology a little as we go along.

GreenMan wrote:
It makes it easier to discuss things with people who know the correct terminology.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

No Professor Parrot Face, I wasn't taking it out of context. It was the idiot that got technical and started trying to split molecules between the surface and the ground that took something out of context. I should have just used ground in my statement, instead of surface. But since we want to split molecules on this one, I can go with "surface," which is what the second link was about. That guy actually did a test to measure what the temperature of the air just above the surface. And found that it was lower than the temperature of the air a couple feet up.

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

He simultaneously read the temperature of the air from inside a weather station box 53 cm off the ground, from a probe laying on the ground, and probes down in the ground at various depths. He plotted his findings, which are attached to this message. He clearly shows that the air 20 inches off the ground is a full 8-10F warmer than the air at the surface.

So can you please explain where the warmer air came from? Since it obviously didn't come from below. And it was consistent throughout the month that he was measuring it, so it wasn't just a freak weather pattern that brought in warmer air.

And you are again demonstrating I was correct - you were attempting to use "surface" to mean air above the ground. And your definition of ground was 25 cm or approximately a FOOT underground which is one of the best insulators that naturally occur.

But that doesn't even occur to you does it? You actually believe that the air is absorbing more energy from sunlight than the ground it.

No ****, I am not demonstrating that you was correct. I'm letting you demonstrate what a constipated **** you are. Just because they guy also measured the temperature 25cm below the surface, don't take that to mean that I am considering that the surface, you dimwit. [jeez what a numb skull this guy really is]. The guy laid a probe on the grass to read the air temperature just above the surface. That settles it, as far as I am concerned, because there is no way that you can read the temperature of the actual surface molecules, without being influenced by the air just above or the ground just below. So the air just above is a good enough indication for me that my original statement is valid. The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

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

And no, I do not think the air is absorbing more energy from the sunlight than from the ground below it. I think the air is absorbing some energy from the earth, besides just thermal energy, as the earth gives off as a result of the sun's ir. Twisting things around that people say doesn't change what they mean, it just makes you a confused idiot. Did you know that idiots are like crazy people, in that they don't know they are idiots? That's right, and crazy people don't know they are crazy. So they think everything is fine, and that they got it all over everyone else, lol. Do you think you are smart, Wake Me Up?

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

LifeIsThermal wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
It's not really magick, since it is understood by those with a little more intelligence than you seem to possess. The carbon molecules absorb radiation from earth,

You know the difference between absorption and emission, right?

Do you know that absorption isn´t cause of emission?

The fact that carbon molecules absorb radiation simply says that they are at the receiving end of transfer. The more they absorb, the colder they are. Because transfer-rate depends on difference in temperature.

that is in the longer bandwidth frequency.

Bandwidth doesn´t apply to heat and temperature.

Because they absorb it, they radiate it back out as thermal energy [heat].

That is only in your fantasy. Absorption is not cause of emission. They are relative through the temperature of the emitter. Emission depends on the internal state, the temperature, only. Absorption rate is the rate of transfer, which depends on the emissive power of the absorber, or the temperature of the absorber. So both emission and absorption depends on temperature of the emitter. The temperature does not depend on absorption. Basic, fundamental thermodynamics. 100% consensus.

If the atmosphere rise in temperature, it absorbs less heat. If it drops in temperature, it absorbs more. If Earth rise in temperature, it absorbs less heat from the sun, if it drops in temperature, it absorbs more solar radiation.

That is what the Stefan-Boltzmann law says. 100% consensus physics. The only way earth can heat up, is from increased internal generation. And only when that generation rise above what the sun provides, 1360.8W/m^2, earth will become warmer that it´s mean temperature. So, it will never happen.

I'm glad you mentioned that, because I was thinking the same thing. But I'm not sure how it is a relevant fact in this discussion. Did someone say we were trying to do that? The only conclusion I can come to is that you think the surface of the planet is warmer than the air above it. Is that what you think?

And only higher temperature can transfer energy to lower temperatures.

Why not?

Because emission depends only on temperature of the emitter. The emission depends on the internal state only. That is what Prevost said. It is not questioned. The atmosphere is the external state.

Some of what would have just went flying off into space gets to interact with greenhouse gases, and produce heat, warming the air.

Your assumptions blind you. The only observed effect is increased absorption. That is not equal to heating, it is equal to the opposite. If the heat source is at constant temperature and absorption of the emitted heat increases, that means that the absorber has dropped in temperature. Basic thermodynamics.

Please provide references for your claims that increased absorption of heat from a heat source, will increase the emissive power of the heat source.

It's apparent that you don't understand how a molecule can absorb energy and warm because of that absorption, unless it was thermal energy that was absorbed.

Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Neither is thermal energy electromagnetic energy. You can convert between the two (through absorption and radiation), but they are DIFFERENT forms of energy.

Indeed they are different forms of energy. A greenhouse gas [yes, I know, you don't believe in them. You probably don't believe in Santa Clause either] molecule absorbs electromagnetic energy and and emits thermal energy.

Thermal energy is not emitted. It may be disbursed by conduction, or it may be disbursed by convection to higher altitude (and less pressure).

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

No Professor Parrot Face, I wasn't taking it out of context. It was the idiot that got technical and started trying to split molecules between the surface and the ground that took something out of context. I should have just used ground in my statement, instead of surface. But since we want to split molecules on this one, I can go with "surface," which is what the second link was about. That guy actually did a test to measure what the temperature of the air just above the surface. And found that it was lower than the temperature of the air a couple feet up.

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

He simultaneously read the temperature of the air from inside a weather station box 53 cm off the ground, from a probe laying on the ground, and probes down in the ground at various depths. He plotted his findings, which are attached to this message. He clearly shows that the air 20 inches off the ground is a full 8-10F warmer than the air at the surface.

So can you please explain where the warmer air came from? Since it obviously didn't come from below. And it was consistent throughout the month that he was measuring it, so it wasn't just a freak weather pattern that brought in warmer air.

And you are again demonstrating I was correct - you were attempting to use "surface" to mean air above the ground. And your definition of ground was 25 cm or approximately a FOOT underground which is one of the best insulators that naturally occur.

But that doesn't even occur to you does it? You actually believe that the air is absorbing more energy from sunlight than the ground it.

No ****, I am not demonstrating that you was correct. I'm letting you demonstrate what a constipated **** you are. Just because they guy also measured the temperature 25cm below the surface, don't take that to mean that I am considering that the surface, you dimwit. [jeez what a numb skull this guy really is]. The guy laid a probe on the grass to read the air temperature just above the surface. That settles it, as far as I am concerned, because there is no way that you can read the temperature of the actual surface molecules, without being influenced by the air just above or the ground just below. So the air just above is a good enough indication for me that my original statement is valid. The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

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

And no, I do not think the air is absorbing more energy from the sunlight than from the ground below it. I think the air is absorbing some energy from the earth, besides just thermal energy, as the earth gives off as a result of the sun's ir. Twisting things around that people say doesn't change what they mean, it just makes you a confused idiot. Did you know that idiots are like crazy people, in that they don't know they are idiots? That's right, and crazy people don't know they are crazy. So they think everything is fine, and that they got it all over everyone else, lol. Do you think you are smart, Wake Me Up?

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Wake wrote:
You are using the impossible dream: "think about it".

GasGuzzler wrote:

Wake wrote:
You are using the impossible dream: "think about it".

Going by a church the other day, had a sign out front that said "EXPECT A MIRACLE". Thought I'd give it a shot.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

No Professor Parrot Face, I wasn't taking it out of context. It was the idiot that got technical and started trying to split molecules between the surface and the ground that took something out of context. I should have just used ground in my statement, instead of surface. But since we want to split molecules on this one, I can go with "surface," which is what the second link was about. That guy actually did a test to measure what the temperature of the air just above the surface. And found that it was lower than the temperature of the air a couple feet up.

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

He simultaneously read the temperature of the air from inside a weather station box 53 cm off the ground, from a probe laying on the ground, and probes down in the ground at various depths. He plotted his findings, which are attached to this message. He clearly shows that the air 20 inches off the ground is a full 8-10F warmer than the air at the surface.

So can you please explain where the warmer air came from? Since it obviously didn't come from below. And it was consistent throughout the month that he was measuring it, so it wasn't just a freak weather pattern that brought in warmer air.

And you are again demonstrating I was correct - you were attempting to use "surface" to mean air above the ground. And your definition of ground was 25 cm or approximately a FOOT underground which is one of the best insulators that naturally occur.

But that doesn't even occur to you does it? You actually believe that the air is absorbing more energy from sunlight than the ground it.

No ****, I am not demonstrating that you was correct. I'm letting you demonstrate what a constipated **** you are. Just because they guy also measured the temperature 25cm below the surface, don't take that to mean that I am considering that the surface, you dimwit. [jeez what a numb skull this guy really is]. The guy laid a probe on the grass to read the air temperature just above the surface. That settles it, as far as I am concerned, because there is no way that you can read the temperature of the actual surface molecules, without being influenced by the air just above or the ground just below. So the air just above is a good enough indication for me that my original statement is valid. The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

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

And no, I do not think the air is absorbing more energy from the sunlight than from the ground below it. I think the air is absorbing some energy from the earth, besides just thermal energy, as the earth gives off as a result of the sun's ir. Twisting things around that people say doesn't change what they mean, it just makes you a confused idiot. Did you know that idiots are like crazy people, in that they don't know they are idiots? That's right, and crazy people don't know they are crazy. So they think everything is fine, and that they got it all over everyone else, lol. Do you think you are smart, Wake Me Up?

Trying to pedal backwards now?

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

So you think that is a good comeback, do you? Is that what you always say when someone spanks your silly little ass?

I made the statement that the air temperature is usually warmer than the ground temperature. You idiots jumped all over that, because according to your brainiac notions, the air is only heated by the ground, so it should always be cooler.

Now I have backed up my wild-assed notion that the air is actually warmer at times than the ground with actual studies, you say I have reversed myself and opinion. You are such a shallow soul.

Could you please explain your accusation that I have reversed my opinion? Or take a hike from this threat too, because your silly little ass is smashed.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

No Professor Parrot Face, I wasn't taking it out of context. It was the idiot that got technical and started trying to split molecules between the surface and the ground that took something out of context. I should have just used ground in my statement, instead of surface. But since we want to split molecules on this one, I can go with "surface," which is what the second link was about. That guy actually did a test to measure what the temperature of the air just above the surface. And found that it was lower than the temperature of the air a couple feet up.

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

He simultaneously read the temperature of the air from inside a weather station box 53 cm off the ground, from a probe laying on the ground, and probes down in the ground at various depths. He plotted his findings, which are attached to this message. He clearly shows that the air 20 inches off the ground is a full 8-10F warmer than the air at the surface.

So can you please explain where the warmer air came from? Since it obviously didn't come from below. And it was consistent throughout the month that he was measuring it, so it wasn't just a freak weather pattern that brought in warmer air.

And you are again demonstrating I was correct - you were attempting to use "surface" to mean air above the ground. And your definition of ground was 25 cm or approximately a FOOT underground which is one of the best insulators that naturally occur.

But that doesn't even occur to you does it? You actually believe that the air is absorbing more energy from sunlight than the ground it.

No ****, I am not demonstrating that you was correct. I'm letting you demonstrate what a constipated **** you are. Just because they guy also measured the temperature 25cm below the surface, don't take that to mean that I am considering that the surface, you dimwit. [jeez what a numb skull this guy really is]. The guy laid a probe on the grass to read the air temperature just above the surface. That settles it, as far as I am concerned, because there is no way that you can read the temperature of the actual surface molecules, without being influenced by the air just above or the ground just below. So the air just above is a good enough indication for me that my original statement is valid. The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

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

And no, I do not think the air is absorbing more energy from the sunlight than from the ground below it. I think the air is absorbing some energy from the earth, besides just thermal energy, as the earth gives off as a result of the sun's ir. Twisting things around that people say doesn't change what they mean, it just makes you a confused idiot. Did you know that idiots are like crazy people, in that they don't know they are idiots? That's right, and crazy people don't know they are crazy. So they think everything is fine, and that they got it all over everyone else, lol. Do you think you are smart, Wake Me Up?

Trying to pedal backwards now?

Nah, I'm pushing forward despite your attempt to confuse everyone. Why don't you take a moment and explain how the air temperature 20 inches off the surface could possibly be higher than the air temperature at the surface, since the air closest to the surface is the air that is being warmed by the surface. According to the BS you preach, the air closest to the surface should be warmer.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

So you think that is a good comeback, do you? Is that what you always say when someone spanks your silly little ass?

I made the statement that the air temperature is usually warmer than the ground temperature. You idiots jumped all over that, because according to your brainiac notions, the air is only heated by the ground, so it should always be cooler.

Now I have backed up my wild-assed notion that the air is actually warmer at times than the ground with actual studies, you say I have reversed myself and opinion. You are such a shallow soul.

Could you please explain your accusation that I have reversed my opinion? Or take a hike from this threat too, because your silly little ass is smashed.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

So you think that is a good comeback, do you? Is that what you always say when someone spanks your silly little ass?

I made the statement that the air temperature is usually warmer than the ground temperature. You idiots jumped all over that, because according to your brainiac notions, the air is only heated by the ground, so it should always be cooler.

Now I have backed up my wild-assed notion that the air is actually warmer at times than the ground with actual studies, you say I have reversed myself and opinion. You are such a shallow soul.

Could you please explain your accusation that I have reversed my opinion? Or take a hike from this threat too, because your silly little ass is smashed.

How typical of a childish mind...claiming he 'won the argument'.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

So you think that is a good comeback, do you? Is that what you always say when someone spanks your silly little ass?

I made the statement that the air temperature is usually warmer than the ground temperature. You idiots jumped all over that, because according to your brainiac notions, the air is only heated by the ground, so it should always be cooler.

Now I have backed up my wild-assed notion that the air is actually warmer at times than the ground with actual studies, you say I have reversed myself and opinion. You are such a shallow soul.

Could you please explain your accusation that I have reversed my opinion? Or take a hike from this threat too, because your silly little ass is smashed.

How typical of a childish mind...claiming he 'won the argument'.

How stupid to ignore that he is being given an opportunity to explain his accusation. You don't get to win anything by making wild accusations that aren't true. All that does is confuse the dummies, like you.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

So you think that is a good comeback, do you? Is that what you always say when someone spanks your silly little ass?

I made the statement that the air temperature is usually warmer than the ground temperature. You idiots jumped all over that, because according to your brainiac notions, the air is only heated by the ground, so it should always be cooler.

Now I have backed up my wild-assed notion that the air is actually warmer at times than the ground with actual studies, you say I have reversed myself and opinion. You are such a shallow soul.

Could you please explain your accusation that I have reversed my opinion? Or take a hike from this threat too, because your silly little ass is smashed.

How typical of a childish mind...claiming he 'won the argument'.

How stupid to ignore that he is being given an opportunity to explain his accusation. You don't get to win anything by making wild accusations that aren't true. All that does is confuse the dummies, like you.

spot wrote:
Into the night also thinks that this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I Is a Magik trick, and that saturating the chamber with CO2 has no effect.

spot wrote:
It's as real as newtons apple falling to the ground but he still thinks it violates the laws of physics.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

So you think that is a good comeback, do you? Is that what you always say when someone spanks your silly little ass?

I made the statement that the air temperature is usually warmer than the ground temperature. You idiots jumped all over that, because according to your brainiac notions, the air is only heated by the ground, so it should always be cooler.

Now I have backed up my wild-assed notion that the air is actually warmer at times than the ground with actual studies, you say I have reversed myself and opinion. You are such a shallow soul.

Could you please explain your accusation that I have reversed my opinion? Or take a hike from this threat too, because your silly little ass is smashed.

How typical of a childish mind...claiming he 'won the argument'.

How stupid to ignore that he is being given an opportunity to explain his accusation. You don't get to win anything by making wild accusations that aren't true. All that does is confuse the dummies, like you.

Denial of your paradox again, eh? Why do you make such stupid statements when the paradox is right here in the quoted thread???

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

So you think that is a good comeback, do you? Is that what you always say when someone spanks your silly little ass?

I made the statement that the air temperature is usually warmer than the ground temperature. You idiots jumped all over that, because according to your brainiac notions, the air is only heated by the ground, so it should always be cooler.

Now I have backed up my wild-assed notion that the air is actually warmer at times than the ground with actual studies, you say I have reversed myself and opinion. You are such a shallow soul.

Could you please explain your accusation that I have reversed my opinion? Or take a hike from this threat too, because your silly little ass is smashed.

How typical of a childish mind...claiming he 'won the argument'.

How stupid to ignore that he is being given an opportunity to explain his accusation. You don't get to win anything by making wild accusations that aren't true. All that does is confuse the dummies, like you.

Denial of your paradox again, eh? Why do you make such stupid statements when the paradox is right here in the quoted thread???

getting green is trying to say that his point would be proven if a warm front blew over an ice field.

GreenMan wrote: Actually, no. True that a warm front blowing in would raise the air temperature above the ground. That isn't the only time the air temperature is above the ground temperature. All you have to do is repeat that experiment, and check the temperature throughout the month. A front isn't going to continue coming in all month.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

So you think that is a good comeback, do you? Is that what you always say when someone spanks your silly little ass?

I made the statement that the air temperature is usually warmer than the ground temperature. You idiots jumped all over that, because according to your brainiac notions, the air is only heated by the ground, so it should always be cooler.

Now I have backed up my wild-assed notion that the air is actually warmer at times than the ground with actual studies, you say I have reversed myself and opinion. You are such a shallow soul.

Could you please explain your accusation that I have reversed my opinion? Or take a hike from this threat too, because your silly little ass is smashed.

How typical of a childish mind...claiming he 'won the argument'.

How stupid to ignore that he is being given an opportunity to explain his accusation. You don't get to win anything by making wild accusations that aren't true. All that does is confuse the dummies, like you.

Denial of your paradox again, eh? Why do you make such stupid statements when the paradox is right here in the quoted thread???

getting green is trying to say that his point would be proven if a warm front blew over an ice field.

Actually, no. True that a warm front blowing in would raise the air temperature above the ground. That isn't the only time the air temperature is above the ground temperature. All you have to do is repeat that experiment, and check the temperature throughout the month. A front isn't going to continue coming in all month.

Into the Night wrote: We get warm fronts here that last for MONTHS.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: Actually, no. True that a warm front blowing in would raise the air temperature above the ground. That isn't the only time the air temperature is above the ground temperature. All you have to do is repeat that experiment, and check the temperature throughout the month. A front isn't going to continue coming in all month.

Trying to backtrack and lie about what you actually said simply shows your real worth.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenery wrote;
The air above the surface is warmer than the ground, on a sunny day. That proves the existence of greenhouse gases.

If CO2 absorbs heat and makes the air warmer, then tell me what would happen if you saturate the ground with water. Water absorbs heat too, should make the ground warmer right? Did you know that weather forecasters take into consideration the ground moisture level when forecasting temps? Forecast high temps will be LOWER than model guidance if the ground is saturated. Think about it for a bit.

Yes, that sounds right that the actual air temperature is lower than forecast on a day when the ground is saturated. That's because wet ground conducts heat better than dry ground. So the ground acts as a better heat sink to the air when it is moist, thus lowering the air temp more than it usually does. See, the ground wants to stay at the regional yearly average. That is where it is happy at, so if the air temp goes above that, then the ground is acting like a sink, to the surface molecules that are warmed by the sun, and the air. And it's the other way around in the winter, when the air and surface temperature are colder than the regional average. The surface and air begin to act as a heat sink to the ground below.

After all year, you can tell who won the battle by measuring the ground temp about 20 feet below the surface. If it's warmer than it was last year, your region warmed up a bit [due to Global Warming], and if is cooler than it was last year, then your region cooled down a bit [due to Global Cooling - how's that for you AGW Deniers? there's you a new term]. It's that ground down there that is keeping our planet from overheating now. Actually, it would be due to Regional Warming, since your region isn't necessarily a reflection of the rest of the world.

Damn, there you go again reversing yourself and your opinions.

So you think that is a good comeback, do you? Is that what you always say when someone spanks your silly little ass?

I made the statement that the air temperature is usually warmer than the ground temperature. You idiots jumped all over that, because according to your brainiac notions, the air is only heated by the ground, so it should always be cooler.

Now I have backed up my wild-assed notion that the air is actually warmer at times than the ground with actual studies, you say I have reversed myself and opinion. You are such a shallow soul.

Could you please explain your accusation that I have reversed my opinion? Or take a hike from this threat too, because your silly little ass is smashed.

How typical of a childish mind...claiming he 'won the argument'.

How stupid to ignore that he is being given an opportunity to explain his accusation. You don't get to win anything by making wild accusations that aren't true. All that does is confuse the dummies, like you.

Denial of your paradox again, eh? Why do you make such stupid statements when the paradox is right here in the quoted thread???

getting green is trying to say that his point would be proven if a warm front blew over an ice field.

Actually, no. True that a warm front blowing in would raise the air temperature above the ground. That isn't the only time the air temperature is above the ground temperature. All you have to do is repeat that experiment, and check the temperature throughout the month. A front isn't going to continue coming in all month.

You haven't looked at the weather in the Pacific Northwest, have you?

We get warm fronts here that last for MONTHS.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: We get warm fronts here that last for MONTHS.

But that doesn't change the fact that sun showing on the surface of dirt absorbs essentially 100% of the energy. Then depending on the conductivity of the soil and the temperature of the air above it it may conduct that energy into the air.

Remember that greenman was arguing that air was warmer than soil.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: Actually, no. True that a warm front blowing in would raise the air temperature above the ground. That isn't the only time the air temperature is above the ground temperature. All you have to do is repeat that experiment, and check the temperature throughout the month. A front isn't going to continue coming in all month.

Trying to backtrack and lie about what you actually said simply shows your real worth.

I'm not backtracking or lying about anything, dumbass.