Greenhouse Effect and the 1909 Wood's Experiment

GreenMan wrote:
Solar energy and Greenhouse effect
Solar radiant energy entering a room through the glass is absorbed by interior objects and surfaces, which then retransmit the energy as thermal radiation, mainly in the far infra-red band (above 5 µm).
Even ordinary float glass is practically opaque to radiation with a wavelength higher than 5 µm.
This means that solar energy entering through the glass is trapped in the room, which then tends to heat up and is referred to as the "greenhouse effect".

Not the same thing as the Greenhouse Effect that causes Global Warming.


The 1909 Woods Experiment, that supposedly proved that CO2 was not responsible for the warming affect of a real Greenhouse, didn't really prove anything. The reason it proved nothing is that blocking infrared radiation with glass is like closing the gate after the cows got out. The longwave infrared radiation that is being emitted by whatever the shortwave solar radiation is striking would be warming both greenhouses, regardless of whether or not the other greenhouse is blocking longwave radiation. That's because the longwave radiation is heating the greenhouse gases in the greenhouse before it is either blocked by glass or not.

The only way to really prove whether or not greenhouse gases inside a greenhouse aid in warming the greenhouse, would be to remove all the gas from a greenhouse [pull a vacuum on it] and see if it still gets as warm as the other greenhouse.

GreenMan wrote:
Solar energy and Greenhouse effect
Solar radiant energy entering a room through the glass is absorbed by interior objects and surfaces, which then retransmit the energy as thermal radiation, mainly in the far infra-red band (above 5 µm).
Even ordinary float glass is practically opaque to radiation with a wavelength higher than 5 µm.
This means that solar energy entering through the glass is trapped in the room, which then tends to heat up and is referred to as the "greenhouse effect".

Not the same thing as the Greenhouse Effect that causes Global Warming.


The 1909 Woods Experiment, that supposedly proved that CO2 was not responsible for the warming affect of a real Greenhouse, didn't really prove anything. The reason it proved nothing is that blocking infrared radiation with glass is like closing the gate after the cows got out. The longwave infrared radiation that is being emitted by whatever the shortwave solar radiation is striking would be warming both greenhouses, regardless of whether or not the other greenhouse is blocking longwave radiation. That's because the longwave radiation is heating the greenhouse gases in the greenhouse before it is either blocked by glass or not.

The only way to really prove whether or not greenhouse gases inside a greenhouse aid in warming the greenhouse, would be to remove all the gas from a greenhouse [pull a vacuum on it] and see if it still gets as warm as the other greenhouse.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Solar energy and Greenhouse effect
Solar radiant energy entering a room through the glass is absorbed by interior objects and surfaces, which then retransmit the energy as thermal radiation, mainly in the far infra-red band (above 5 µm).
Even ordinary float glass is practically opaque to radiation with a wavelength higher than 5 µm.
This means that solar energy entering through the glass is trapped in the room, which then tends to heat up and is referred to as the "greenhouse effect".

Not the same thing as the Greenhouse Effect that causes Global Warming.


The 1909 Woods Experiment, that supposedly proved that CO2 was not responsible for the warming affect of a real Greenhouse, didn't really prove anything. The reason it proved nothing is that blocking infrared radiation with glass is like closing the gate after the cows got out. The longwave infrared radiation that is being emitted by whatever the shortwave solar radiation is striking would be warming both greenhouses, regardless of whether or not the other greenhouse is blocking longwave radiation. That's because the longwave radiation is heating the greenhouse gases in the greenhouse before it is either blocked by glass or not.

The only way to really prove whether or not greenhouse gases inside a greenhouse aid in warming the greenhouse, would be to remove all the gas from a greenhouse [pull a vacuum on it] and see if it still gets as warm as the other greenhouse.

You have completely misconstrued what Arrhenius said and what Woods said. And you still don't have any idea what we're talking about. It was not Arrhenius' idea that CO2 was a greenhouse gas but that of Fourier, Pouillet and Langley.

If you don't know anything about this why are you continuing to talk about it as if you did?

Arrhenius paper is not long nor complicated. Did it ever occur to you to actually read it? Though I doubt you could understand it since it's written in late 1800's English.

Furthermore his experiments were false because they were not controlled for H2O though he did report the levels of H2O which were more than large enough to color the results.

Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Solar energy and Greenhouse effect
Solar radiant energy entering a room through the glass is absorbed by interior objects and surfaces, which then retransmit the energy as thermal radiation, mainly in the far infra-red band (above 5 µm).
Even ordinary float glass is practically opaque to radiation with a wavelength higher than 5 µm.
This means that solar energy entering through the glass is trapped in the room, which then tends to heat up and is referred to as the "greenhouse effect".

Not the same thing as the Greenhouse Effect that causes Global Warming.


The 1909 Woods Experiment, that supposedly proved that CO2 was not responsible for the warming affect of a real Greenhouse, didn't really prove anything. The reason it proved nothing is that blocking infrared radiation with glass is like closing the gate after the cows got out. The longwave infrared radiation that is being emitted by whatever the shortwave solar radiation is striking would be warming both greenhouses, regardless of whether or not the other greenhouse is blocking longwave radiation. That's because the longwave radiation is heating the greenhouse gases in the greenhouse before it is either blocked by glass or not.

The only way to really prove whether or not greenhouse gases inside a greenhouse aid in warming the greenhouse, would be to remove all the gas from a greenhouse [pull a vacuum on it] and see if it still gets as warm as the other greenhouse.

Heh. That will certainly test the material strength of the greenhouse!

Into the Darkness wrote:

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.

Into the Darkness wrote:

You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder substance.

Into the Darkness wrote:

You can't reduce radiance from a planet while the temperature is increasing.

Into the Darkness wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.

ITN wrote;
Heh. That will certainly test the material strength of the greenhouse!

Greenhorn wrote;
Wouldn't have to pull the vacuum down that far to produce the results expected. Just enough to eliminate most of the air. Then see if it warms at all above ambient.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Solar energy and Greenhouse effect
Solar radiant energy entering a room through the glass is absorbed by interior objects and surfaces, which then retransmit the energy as thermal radiation, mainly in the far infra-red band (above 5 µm).
Even ordinary float glass is practically opaque to radiation with a wavelength higher than 5 µm.
This means that solar energy entering through the glass is trapped in the room, which then tends to heat up and is referred to as the "greenhouse effect".

Not the same thing as the Greenhouse Effect that causes Global Warming.


The 1909 Woods Experiment, that supposedly proved that CO2 was not responsible for the warming affect of a real Greenhouse, didn't really prove anything. The reason it proved nothing is that blocking infrared radiation with glass is like closing the gate after the cows got out. The longwave infrared radiation that is being emitted by whatever the shortwave solar radiation is striking would be warming both greenhouses, regardless of whether or not the other greenhouse is blocking longwave radiation. That's because the longwave radiation is heating the greenhouse gases in the greenhouse before it is either blocked by glass or not.

The only way to really prove whether or not greenhouse gases inside a greenhouse aid in warming the greenhouse, would be to remove all the gas from a greenhouse [pull a vacuum on it] and see if it still gets as warm as the other greenhouse.

Heh. That will certainly test the material strength of the greenhouse!

Wouldn't have to pull the vacuum down that far to produce the results expected. Just enough to eliminate most of the air. Then see if it warms at all above ambient.

Into the Darkness wrote:

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.

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, that is in the longer bandwidth frequency. Because they absorb it, they radiate it back out as thermal energy [heat]. Because they are inside the glass of the greenhouse, the infrared has not been filtered, so it is free to be absorbed by those pesky carbon molecules.

Into the Darkness wrote:

You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder substance.

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?

Into the Darkness wrote:

You can't reduce radiance from a planet while the temperature is increasing.

Why not? Does that break one of those laws you think you know something about? I hope not, because we can't be doing that. I don't think anyone said anything about reducing radiance from a planet while the temperature is increasing. It's not being reduced, it's just being redirected. Some of what would have just went flying off into space gets to interact with greenhouse gases, and produce heat, warming the air.

Into the Darkness wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.

Thanks for your opinion, Professor Parrot Face. I think I'll maintain my opinion that there is such a thing as a 'greenhouse gas.'

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Solar energy and Greenhouse effect
Solar radiant energy entering a room through the glass is absorbed by interior objects and surfaces, which then retransmit the energy as thermal radiation, mainly in the far infra-red band (above 5 µm).
Even ordinary float glass is practically opaque to radiation with a wavelength higher than 5 µm.
This means that solar energy entering through the glass is trapped in the room, which then tends to heat up and is referred to as the "greenhouse effect".

Not the same thing as the Greenhouse Effect that causes Global Warming.


The 1909 Woods Experiment, that supposedly proved that CO2 was not responsible for the warming affect of a real Greenhouse, didn't really prove anything. The reason it proved nothing is that blocking infrared radiation with glass is like closing the gate after the cows got out. The longwave infrared radiation that is being emitted by whatever the shortwave solar radiation is striking would be warming both greenhouses, regardless of whether or not the other greenhouse is blocking longwave radiation. That's because the longwave radiation is heating the greenhouse gases in the greenhouse before it is either blocked by glass or not.

The only way to really prove whether or not greenhouse gases inside a greenhouse aid in warming the greenhouse, would be to remove all the gas from a greenhouse [pull a vacuum on it] and see if it still gets as warm as the other greenhouse.

Heh. That will certainly test the material strength of the greenhouse!

Wouldn't have to pull the vacuum down that far to produce the results expected. Just enough to eliminate most of the air. Then see if it warms at all above ambient.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Darkness wrote:

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.

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, that is in the longer bandwidth frequency. Because they absorb it, they radiate it back out as thermal energy [heat]. Because they are inside the glass of the greenhouse, the infrared has not been filtered, so it is free to be absorbed by those pesky carbon molecules.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Darkness wrote:

You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder substance.

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?

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Darkness wrote:

You can't reduce radiance from a planet while the temperature is increasing.

Why not? Does that break one of those laws you think you know something about?

GreenMan wrote:
I hope not, because we can't be doing that.

GreenMan wrote:
I don't think anyone said anything about reducing radiance from a planet while the temperature is increasing.

GreenMan wrote:
It's not being reduced, it's just being redirected.

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

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Darkness wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.

Thanks for your opinion, Professor Parrot Face. I think I'll maintain my opinion that there is such a thing as a 'greenhouse gas.'

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Solar energy and Greenhouse effect
Solar radiant energy entering a room through the glass is absorbed by interior objects and surfaces, which then retransmit the energy as thermal radiation, mainly in the far infra-red band (above 5 µm).
Even ordinary float glass is practically opaque to radiation with a wavelength higher than 5 µm.
This means that solar energy entering through the glass is trapped in the room, which then tends to heat up and is referred to as the "greenhouse effect".

Not the same thing as the Greenhouse Effect that causes Global Warming.


The 1909 Woods Experiment, that supposedly proved that CO2 was not responsible for the warming affect of a real Greenhouse, didn't really prove anything. The reason it proved nothing is that blocking infrared radiation with glass is like closing the gate after the cows got out. The longwave infrared radiation that is being emitted by whatever the shortwave solar radiation is striking would be warming both greenhouses, regardless of whether or not the other greenhouse is blocking longwave radiation. That's because the longwave radiation is heating the greenhouse gases in the greenhouse before it is either blocked by glass or not.

The only way to really prove whether or not greenhouse gases inside a greenhouse aid in warming the greenhouse, would be to remove all the gas from a greenhouse [pull a vacuum on it] and see if it still gets as warm as the other greenhouse.

Heh. That will certainly test the material strength of the greenhouse!

Wouldn't have to pull the vacuum down that far to produce the results expected. Just enough to eliminate most of the air. Then see if it warms at all above ambient.

Into the Darkness wrote:

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.

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, that is in the longer bandwidth frequency. Because they absorb it, they radiate it back out as thermal energy [heat]. Because they are inside the glass of the greenhouse, the infrared has not been filtered, so it is free to be absorbed by those pesky carbon molecules.

Into the Darkness wrote:

You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder substance.

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?

Into the Darkness wrote:

You can't reduce radiance from a planet while the temperature is increasing.

Why not? Does that break one of those laws you think you know something about? I hope not, because we can't be doing that. I don't think anyone said anything about reducing radiance from a planet while the temperature is increasing. It's not being reduced, it's just being redirected. Some of what would have just went flying off into space gets to interact with greenhouse gases, and produce heat, warming the air.

Into the Darkness wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.

Thanks for your opinion, Professor Parrot Face. I think I'll maintain my opinion that there is such a thing as a 'greenhouse gas.'

I wonder if you'll ever grow up. That's very doubtful.

Into the Night wrote: The Magick Bouncing Photon argument yet again. Carbon dioxide does not heat the surface. It can't.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: The Magick Bouncing Photon argument yet again. Carbon dioxide does not heat the surface. It can't.

Theoretically you could heat an individual CO2 molecule up to the point where it would radiate.

Wake wrote:
This radiation goes off in all directions so it COULD heat things within a close enough range to be effected.

Wake wrote:
Since the energy in the radiation falls off in an inverse square factor it would have to be literally on the ground to accomplish anything measurably.

Wake wrote:
In practice that couldn't be more than one CO2 molecule out of millions since the lower atmosphere is controlled almost entirely by conduction and convection.

Wake wrote:
However, in the stratosphere it could retain heat because the atmosphere is thin enough that conduction is very much slower.

Wake wrote:
However the radiation that points back towards the Earth couldn't travel very far before being trapped by other CO2 molecules.

Wake wrote:
This is a case of the only direction in which it wouldn't be returned to the stratosphere in rather short order is away from the Earth.

Wake wrote:
Not that this makes much difference since 95% of the heat absorbing material in the atmosphere is water vapor.

Wake wrote:
The entire idea of greenhouse gases is absurd on its very surface.

Wake wrote:
I believe that this subject needs both serious investigation of those committing this fraud against the public and prosecution for both fraud and mismanagement of public funds.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: The Magick Bouncing Photon argument yet again. Carbon dioxide does not heat the surface. It can't.

Theoretically you could heat an individual CO2 molecule up to the point where it would radiate.

Is the molecule above absolute zero? If so, then it radiates.

Wake wrote:
This radiation goes off in all directions so it COULD heat things within a close enough range to be effected.

Not if that thing is hotter than the CO2 trying to radiate it. It is not possible to heat something warmer with something colder, even if that method of heating is by radiance. Ice radiates too, but it won't heat the coffee.

Wake wrote:
Since the energy in the radiation falls off in an inverse square factor it would have to be literally on the ground to accomplish anything measurably.

I think you would safely put that under conduction at that point anyway.

Wake wrote:
In practice that couldn't be more than one CO2 molecule out of millions since the lower atmosphere is controlled almost entirely by conduction and convection.

Not 'controlled'. Heated. Yes, the primary method of heating the atmosphere (and cooling the surface by doing so) is through conduction and convection. The primary method of cooling the surface, however, is by radiance into space.

Wake wrote:
However, in the stratosphere it could retain heat because the atmosphere is thin enough that conduction is very much slower.

The surface and the atmosphere BOTH radiate their energy into space. The surface is the brightest. It far outshines the atmosphere (mostly because it IS a set of gases and vapors and therefore much less dense than the surface).

Wake wrote:
However the radiation that points back towards the Earth couldn't travel very far before being trapped by other CO2 molecules.

You can't trap radiation. A photon, when absorbed, is utterly destroyed. The energy it contained is converted to thermal energy (in the case of infrared light). That thermal energy will emit a NEW photon due to Planck emission. This is because some of that energy was dissipated into surrounding material. The new photon may be the same frequency (it probably is), but not as many are emitted per second. Thus, the total power emitted per second as light is less.

Wake wrote:
This is a case of the only direction in which it wouldn't be returned to the stratosphere in rather short order is away from the Earth.

If a molecule is excited (by heat, light, whatever), it will NOT absorb any more energy at that level. Instead, the incoming photon will be reflected, refracted, or the target molecule will appear transparent to it.

Of course, the 'target' molecule will emit energy too. When it does, it loses its excited state. An incoming molecule will excite it again (if nothing else does first). An excited molecule is not temperature.

Wake wrote:
Not that this makes much difference since 95% of the heat absorbing material in the atmosphere is water vapor.

Actually 100% of the heat absorbing material in the atmosphere is the atmosphere. ALL of the atmosphere is mass. ALL of it is above absolute zero. ALL of it is heated, becomes warmer, heats something else, becomes cool.

There is nothing special about water vapor, just as there is nothing special about CO2. Heating by radiance is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, in addition to conduction.

Like anything heated in the atmosphere, convection helps to move energy upward (outward). That is true of all fluids.

Wake wrote:
The entire idea of greenhouse gases is absurd on its very surface.

Quite right. That's why I'm surprised you try to make such a case for water vapor. Yes, there is more of it than CO2, but the effect on temperature is the same. Nothing.

Wake wrote:
I believe that this subject needs both serious investigation of those committing this fraud against the public and prosecution for both fraud and mismanagement of public funds.

Well, since no one seems interested in prosecuting Hillary for her crimes of espionage (for the Russians!), Comey for his crimes of betraying state secrets and the persecution of a U.S. citizen for political purposes, the liberals in general and the Clintons and Obama in particular for establishing a state religion (The Church of Global Warming), and the endless corruption that you find all over government, good luck.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: The Magick Bouncing Photon argument yet again. Carbon dioxide does not heat the surface. It can't.

Theoretically you could heat an individual CO2 molecule up to the point where it would radiate.

Is the molecule above absolute zero? If so, then it radiates.

Wake wrote:
This radiation goes off in all directions so it COULD heat things within a close enough range to be effected.

Not if that thing is hotter than the CO2 trying to radiate it. It is not possible to heat something warmer with something colder, even if that method of heating is by radiance. Ice radiates too, but it won't heat the coffee.

Wake wrote:
Since the energy in the radiation falls off in an inverse square factor it would have to be literally on the ground to accomplish anything measurably.

I think you would safely put that under conduction at that point anyway.

Wake wrote:
In practice that couldn't be more than one CO2 molecule out of millions since the lower atmosphere is controlled almost entirely by conduction and convection.

Not 'controlled'. Heated. Yes, the primary method of heating the atmosphere (and cooling the surface by doing so) is through conduction and convection. The primary method of cooling the surface, however, is by radiance into space.

Wake wrote:
However, in the stratosphere it could retain heat because the atmosphere is thin enough that conduction is very much slower.

The surface and the atmosphere BOTH radiate their energy into space. The surface is the brightest. It far outshines the atmosphere (mostly because it IS a set of gases and vapors and therefore much less dense than the surface).

Wake wrote:
However the radiation that points back towards the Earth couldn't travel very far before being trapped by other CO2 molecules.

You can't trap radiation. A photon, when absorbed, is utterly destroyed. The energy it contained is converted to thermal energy (in the case of infrared light). That thermal energy will emit a NEW photon due to Planck emission. This is because some of that energy was dissipated into surrounding material. The new photon may be the same frequency (it probably is), but not as many are emitted per second. Thus, the total power emitted per second as light is less.

Wake wrote:
This is a case of the only direction in which it wouldn't be returned to the stratosphere in rather short order is away from the Earth.

If a molecule is excited (by heat, light, whatever), it will NOT absorb any more energy at that level. Instead, the incoming photon will be reflected, refracted, or the target molecule will appear transparent to it.

Of course, the 'target' molecule will emit energy too. When it does, it loses its excited state. An incoming molecule will excite it again (if nothing else does first). An excited molecule is not temperature.

Wake wrote:
Not that this makes much difference since 95% of the heat absorbing material in the atmosphere is water vapor.

Actually 100% of the heat absorbing material in the atmosphere is the atmosphere. ALL of the atmosphere is mass. ALL of it is above absolute zero. ALL of it is heated, becomes warmer, heats something else, becomes cool.

There is nothing special about water vapor, just as there is nothing special about CO2. Heating by radiance is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, in addition to conduction.

Like anything heated in the atmosphere, convection helps to move energy upward (outward). That is true of all fluids.

Wake wrote:
The entire idea of greenhouse gases is absurd on its very surface.

Quite right. That's why I'm surprised you try to make such a case for water vapor. Yes, there is more of it than CO2, but the effect on temperature is the same. Nothing.

Wake wrote:
I believe that this subject needs both serious investigation of those committing this fraud against the public and prosecution for both fraud and mismanagement of public funds.

Well, since no one seems interested in prosecuting Hillary for her crimes of espionage (for the Russians!), Comey for his crimes of betraying state secrets and the persecution of a U.S. citizen for political purposes, the liberals in general and the Clintons and Obama in particular for establishing a state religion (The Church of Global Warming), and the endless corruption that you find all over government, good luck.

This is why you're such a pain in the ass to try and discuss anything with. It does not radiate if the surrounding temperatures are the same.

Wake wrote:
You JUST turn around and say that you can't heat something with something that is colder and then state that everything is radiating - the Earth as a whole radiates because it contains heat

Wake wrote:
but individual molecules do not radiate simply because they are above absolute zero.

Wake wrote:
Unless you accept that they are receiving more heat than they are radiating from their surroundings.

Wake wrote:
You will argue a simplified description because you can and not because you make ANYTHING either more accurate or more descriptive. You just blather away because you can.

Wake wrote:
And since you don't have a basic understanding of the motion of heat in the atmosphere you make silly statements such as "there's nothing special about water".

Wake wrote:
Any weatherman can tell you that there is a "real feel" of temperature due to the humidity in the air but you don't understand what or why.

Wake wrote:
Any meteorologist can predict that clouds will hold heat in

Wake wrote:
but again it's meaningless to you since "there is nothing special about water."

Wake wrote:
Let me give you a clue - this planet is unique perhaps in the entire universe mostly because it has a surface composed of 70% water.
Every form of life on this planet is dependent 100% on the availability of H2O. Everything from the climate to the daily weather is totally dependent upon either water or the lack of it.

Wake wrote:
There "MAY" have been a Jesus?

Wake wrote:
There is absolutely no doubt about that. Jesus is mentioned in the records of the Greeks, the Romans and the Hebrews.

Wake wrote:
Chapters in the New Testament are written by people who actually knew him.

Wake wrote:
Whether he was the son of God or not is up to you to determine

Wake wrote:
but his existence is not in doubt.

Wake wrote:
You say things not because they need to be said but because you don't have anything better to do.

Wake wrote:
You don't understand just how necessary water vapor is but somehow blindly have the idea that nothing is special. Well, you can't be more incorrect.

Wake wrote:
I could give you lists of papers on the subject but anything you don't understand you refer to as unrelated information.

Wake wrote:
I wrote a paper in 2002 that is still the reference for a safety device.

Wake wrote:
But people will still pass laws requiring that safety device because facts don't phase them just as facts bounce off of you like bullets off of superman.

Wake wrote:
Is that how you see yourself?

Follow Me Into the Darkness spewed:

Won't Wake Up mumbled:

Follow Me Into the Darkness spewed: The Magick Bouncing Photon argument yet again. Carbon dioxide does not heat the surface. It can't.

Theoretically you could heat an individual CO2 molecule up to the point where it would radiate.

Is the molecule above absolute zero? If so, then it radiates.

Wake wrote:
This radiation goes off in all directions so it COULD heat things within a close enough range to be effected.

Not if that thing is hotter than the CO2 trying to radiate it. It is not possible to heat something warmer with something colder, even if that method of heating is by radiance. Ice radiates too, but it won't heat the coffee.

Wake wrote:
Since the energy in the radiation falls off in an inverse square factor it would have to be literally on the ground to accomplish anything measurably.

I think you would safely put that under conduction at that point anyway.

Wake wrote:
In practice that couldn't be more than one CO2 molecule out of millions since the lower atmosphere is controlled almost entirely by conduction and convection.

Not 'controlled'. Heated. Yes, the primary method of heating the atmosphere (and cooling the surface by doing so) is through conduction and convection. The primary method of cooling the surface, however, is by radiance into space.

Wake wrote:
However, in the stratosphere it could retain heat because the atmosphere is thin enough that conduction is very much slower.

The surface and the atmosphere BOTH radiate their energy into space. The surface is the brightest. It far outshines the atmosphere (mostly because it IS a set of gases and vapors and therefore much less dense than the surface).

Wake wrote:
However the radiation that points back towards the Earth couldn't travel very far before being trapped by other CO2 molecules.

You can't trap radiation. A photon, when absorbed, is utterly destroyed. The energy it contained is converted to thermal energy (in the case of infrared light). That thermal energy will emit a NEW photon due to Planck emission. This is because some of that energy was dissipated into surrounding material. The new photon may be the same frequency (it probably is), but not as many are emitted per second. Thus, the total power emitted per second as light is less.

Wake wrote:
This is a case of the only direction in which it wouldn't be returned to the stratosphere in rather short order is away from the Earth.

If a molecule is excited (by heat, light, whatever), it will NOT absorb any more energy at that level. Instead, the incoming photon will be reflected, refracted, or the target molecule will appear transparent to it.

Of course, the 'target' molecule will emit energy too. When it does, it loses its excited state. An incoming molecule will excite it again (if nothing else does first). An excited molecule is not temperature.

Wake wrote:
Not that this makes much difference since 95% of the heat absorbing material in the atmosphere is water vapor.

Actually 100% of the heat absorbing material in the atmosphere is the atmosphere. ALL of the atmosphere is mass. ALL of it is above absolute zero. ALL of it is heated, becomes warmer, heats something else, becomes cool.

There is nothing special about water vapor, just as there is nothing special about CO2. Heating by radiance is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, in addition to conduction.

Like anything heated in the atmosphere, convection helps to move energy upward (outward). That is true of all fluids.

Wake wrote:
The entire idea of greenhouse gases is absurd on its very surface.

Quite right. That's why I'm surprised you try to make such a case for water vapor. Yes, there is more of it than CO2, but the effect on temperature is the same. Nothing.

Wake wrote:
I believe that this subject needs both serious investigation of those committing this fraud against the public and prosecution for both fraud and mismanagement of public funds.

Well, since no one seems interested in prosecuting Hillary for her crimes of espionage (for the Russians!), Comey for his crimes of betraying state secrets and the persecution of a U.S. citizen for political purposes, the liberals in general and the Clintons and Obama in particular for establishing a state religion (The Church of Global Warming), and the endless corruption that you find all over government, good luck.

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness spewed:

Won't Wake Up mumbled:

Follow Me Into the Darkness spewed: The Magick Bouncing Photon argument yet again. Carbon dioxide does not heat the surface. It can't.

Theoretically you could heat an individual CO2 molecule up to the point where it would radiate.

Is the molecule above absolute zero? If so, then it radiates.

Wake wrote:
This radiation goes off in all directions so it COULD heat things within a close enough range to be effected.

Not if that thing is hotter than the CO2 trying to radiate it. It is not possible to heat something warmer with something colder, even if that method of heating is by radiance. Ice radiates too, but it won't heat the coffee.

Wake wrote:
Since the energy in the radiation falls off in an inverse square factor it would have to be literally on the ground to accomplish anything measurably.

I think you would safely put that under conduction at that point anyway.

Wake wrote:
In practice that couldn't be more than one CO2 molecule out of millions since the lower atmosphere is controlled almost entirely by conduction and convection.

Not 'controlled'. Heated. Yes, the primary method of heating the atmosphere (and cooling the surface by doing so) is through conduction and convection. The primary method of cooling the surface, however, is by radiance into space.

Wake wrote:
However, in the stratosphere it could retain heat because the atmosphere is thin enough that conduction is very much slower.

The surface and the atmosphere BOTH radiate their energy into space. The surface is the brightest. It far outshines the atmosphere (mostly because it IS a set of gases and vapors and therefore much less dense than the surface).

Wake wrote:
However the radiation that points back towards the Earth couldn't travel very far before being trapped by other CO2 molecules.

You can't trap radiation. A photon, when absorbed, is utterly destroyed. The energy it contained is converted to thermal energy (in the case of infrared light). That thermal energy will emit a NEW photon due to Planck emission. This is because some of that energy was dissipated into surrounding material. The new photon may be the same frequency (it probably is), but not as many are emitted per second. Thus, the total power emitted per second as light is less.

Wake wrote:
This is a case of the only direction in which it wouldn't be returned to the stratosphere in rather short order is away from the Earth.

If a molecule is excited (by heat, light, whatever), it will NOT absorb any more energy at that level. Instead, the incoming photon will be reflected, refracted, or the target molecule will appear transparent to it.

Of course, the 'target' molecule will emit energy too. When it does, it loses its excited state. An incoming molecule will excite it again (if nothing else does first). An excited molecule is not temperature.

Wake wrote:
Not that this makes much difference since 95% of the heat absorbing material in the atmosphere is water vapor.

Actually 100% of the heat absorbing material in the atmosphere is the atmosphere. ALL of the atmosphere is mass. ALL of it is above absolute zero. ALL of it is heated, becomes warmer, heats something else, becomes cool.

There is nothing special about water vapor, just as there is nothing special about CO2. Heating by radiance is just another way for the surface to heat the atmosphere, in addition to conduction.

Like anything heated in the atmosphere, convection helps to move energy upward (outward). That is true of all fluids.

Wake wrote:
The entire idea of greenhouse gases is absurd on its very surface.

Quite right. That's why I'm surprised you try to make such a case for water vapor. Yes, there is more of it than CO2, but the effect on temperature is the same. Nothing.

Wake wrote:
I believe that this subject needs both serious investigation of those committing this fraud against the public and prosecution for both fraud and mismanagement of public funds.

Well, since no one seems interested in prosecuting Hillary for her crimes of espionage (for the Russians!), Comey for his crimes of betraying state secrets and the persecution of a U.S. citizen for political purposes, the liberals in general and the Clintons and Obama in particular for establishing a state religion (The Church of Global Warming), and the endless corruption that you find all over government, good luck.

You are quite good at stating irrelevant information, Professor Parrot Face. But you are not so good at dodging relevant questions.

GreenMan wrote:
You just ignore things like my idea to prove whether or not greenhouse gases exist.

GreenMan wrote:
All you have to do is remove the air from a greenhouse and see if it still warms the same amount as a greenhouse that is full of air.

GreenMan wrote:
You are dodging that, because you know that the greenhouse that is absent of air will not warm above ambient.

GreenMan wrote:
If you can prove otherwise, then we should revisit your hypothesis that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.

GreenMan wrote:
If it weren't for greenhouse gases, we would be quite cold.

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

GreenMan wrote:
The air is warmer, usually.

GreenMan wrote:
All you have to do is stick a thermometer in the ground, and compare that to one that is in air.

GreenMan wrote:
And the reason it is warmer is because of greenhouse gases.

JizzGuzzler downed another wad and wrote:

ITN wrote;
Heh. That will certainly test the material strength of the greenhouse!

Greenhorn wrote;
Wouldn't have to pull the vacuum down that far to produce the results expected. Just enough to eliminate most of the air. Then see if it warms at all above ambient.

OK Greenery, you go in there and suck that place down. Make sure you're in there until almost all the air is out....good luck with that. I'll even give ya an oxygen tank for breathing air. LOL

GreenMan wrote: Stuff your shit, you AGW denier liar whiner!

litesong wrote:

GreenMan wrote: Stuff your shit, you AGW denier liar whiner!

Thank you for standing for truth.
More truth:
"don't rump" has descended to become the "grand wizard of the kkk" (always small letters) & the new leader of the neo-nazis(always small letters). PAST HISTORY pretended that the kkk(always small letters) & the neo-nazis(always small letters) battled each other, but now "don't rump" has "united the white" (always small letters).

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed:...and Litebeer has descended to the only racist on the CLIMATE DEBATE FORUM.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed:...and litesong has descended to the only racist on the CLIMATE DEBATE FORUM.
Care to comment on a climate issue litesong?

Litebeer wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed:...and litesong has descended to the only racist on the CLIMATE DEBATE FORUM.
Care to comment on a climate issue litesong?

As for this website, it was started as an AGW denier liar whiner oil, coal, energy, & re-pubic-lick-un boardroom propaganda PR poopsite & its name "climate-debate" proves that it is such.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed: Liitebeer, Love it or leave it. Same goes for the USA.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Would you care to comment on a climate topic Litebeer? There are plenty to choose from.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I actually feel sorry for the poor fool. Can't get outside of his own head enough to make something of himself. That is just a miserable way to exist. I'm actually a nice guy and wish everyone , including libs, blacks, whites, and purples, the opportunity to realize their full potential. Litebeer may or may not have potential, but until he quits blaming all his shortfalls on everyone else, he hasn't a chance at seeing what he is capable of..

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed:
I actually feel sorry.....

He is sick....

litesong wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I actually feel sorry for the poor fool. Can't get outside of his own head enough to make something of himself. That is just a miserable way to exist. I'm actually a nice guy and wish everyone , including libs, blacks, whites, and purples, the opportunity to realize their full potential. Litebeer may or may not have potential, but until he quits blaming all his shortfalls on everyone else, he hasn't a chance at seeing what he is capable of..

He is sick and has no potential. He made that more than clear as he was holding long conversations with himself on these comments.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" demean those that demean "don't rump", the grand wizard of the kkk(always small letters) & leader of the neo-nazis.
Meanwhile:
The Lincoln Memorial was desecrated with red spray paint.
"don't rump" (always small letters) has given white supremacist kkk(always small letters) & neo-nazis (always small letters) the go ahead for more violence. Since "don't rump", during its campaign, endorsed the kkk(always small letters), white supremacists have gathered in nearly(more?) one thousand organizations. kkk(always small letters), & neo-nazis(always small letters) find rich territory, uniting with many racist biker groups(always small letters).
Within the past week alone, "don't rump" added enough shit to the nation to increase racist gatherings to many thousands (tens of thousands?) of GROUPS.
all hail "don't rump" (always small letters), "grand wizard of the kkk" (always small letters) & the new leader of the neo-nazis(always small letters).....raise torches or give the nazi salute, to endorse whatever hate you generate the most.

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" demean those that demean "don't rump", the grand wizard of the kkk(always small letters) & leader of the neo-nazis.
Meanwhile:
The Lincoln Memorial was desecrated with red spray paint.
"don't rump" (always small letters) has given white supremacist kkk(always small letters) & neo-nazis (always small letters) the go ahead for more violence. Since "don't rump", during its campaign, endorsed the kkk(always small letters), white supremacists have gathered in nearly(more?) one thousand organizations. kkk(always small letters), & neo-nazis(always small letters) find rich territory, uniting with many racist biker groups(always small letters).
Within the past week alone, "don't rump" added enough shit to the nation to increase racist gatherings to many thousands (tens of thousands?) of GROUPS.
all hail "don't rump" (always small letters), "grand wizard of the kkk" (always small letters) & the new leader of the neo-nazis(always small letters).....raise torches or give the nazi salute, to endorse whatever hate you generate the most.

Lincoln was a Republican. NAZI's were left wing fanatics. The name stands for National Socialist People's Party. The KKK(not small letters to "wake-me-up") were Democrats. I knew Sonny Barger from Linstrom and Self Harley-Davidson dealer who was one of the founders of the Hell's Angels and he didn't have a racist bone in his body. He was also part Indian I believe.

litesong wrote:

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" demean those that demean "don't rump", the grand wizard of the kkk(always small letters) & leader of the neo-nazis.
Meanwhile:
The Lincoln Memorial was desecrated with red spray paint.
"don't rump" (always small letters) has given white supremacist kkk(always small letters) & neo-nazis (always small letters) the go ahead for more violence. Since "don't rump", during its campaign, endorsed the kkk(always small letters), white supremacists have gathered in nearly(more?) one thousand organizations. kkk(always small letters), & neo-nazis(always small letters) find rich territory, uniting with many racist biker groups(always small letters).
Within the past week alone, "don't rump" added enough shit to the nation to increase racist gatherings to many thousands (tens of thousands?) of GROUPS.
all hail "don't rump" (always small letters), "grand wizard of the kkk" (always small letters) & the new leader of the neo-nazis(always small letters).....raise torches or give the nazi salute, to endorse whatever hate you generate the most.

Lincoln was a Republican. NAZI's were left wing fanatics. The name stands for National Socialist People's Party. The KKK(not small letters to "wake-me-up") were Democrats. I knew Sonny Barger from Linstrom and Self Harley-Davidson dealer who was one of the founders of the Hell's Angels and he didn't have a racist bone in his body. He was also part Indian I believe.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" knows Hell's Angels..... one of few statements of "wake-me-up", that I believe. As far as Native Tribes blood being in a Hell's Angel, Hitler may have been part jewish.
the kkk(always small letters) were democrats, till the re-pubic-lick-uns showed them that re-pubic-lick-uns could hate more. Anyhow, white hatred runs threw all america.... even among AGW denier liar whiners.

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" demean those that demean "don't rump", the grand wizard of the kkk(always small letters) & leader of the neo-nazis.
Meanwhile:
The Lincoln Memorial was desecrated with red spray paint.
"don't rump" (always small letters) has given white supremacist kkk(always small letters) & neo-nazis (always small letters) the go ahead for more violence. Since "don't rump", during its campaign, endorsed the kkk(always small letters), white supremacists have gathered in nearly(more?) one thousand organizations. kkk(always small letters), & neo-nazis(always small letters) find rich territory, uniting with many racist biker groups(always small letters).
Within the past week alone, "don't rump" added enough shit to the nation to increase racist gatherings to many thousands (tens of thousands?) of GROUPS.
all hail "don't rump" (always small letters), "grand wizard of the kkk" (always small letters) & the new leader of the neo-nazis(always small letters).....raise torches or give the nazi salute, to endorse whatever hate you generate the most.

Lincoln was a Republican. NAZI's were left wing fanatics. The name stands for National Socialist People's Party. The KKK(not small letters to "wake-me-up") were Democrats. I knew Sonny Barger from Linstrom and Self Harley-Davidson dealer who was one of the founders of the Hell's Angels and he didn't have a racist bone in his body. He was also part Indian I believe.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" knows Hell's Angels..... one of few statements of "wake-me-up", that I believe. As far as Native Tribes blood being in a Hell's Angel, Hitler may have been part jewish.
the kkk(always small letters) were democrats, till the re-pubic-lick-uns showed them that re-pubic-lick-uns could hate more. Anyhow, white hatred runs threw all america.... even among AGW denier liar whiners.

You forgot to quote me where I threatened the life of your "wife". This is pretty comical because the spitting hatred for everyone and everything around you is something I'm quite familiar with. Since I worked on devices to detect HIV and AIDS I heard that attitude many times before and all from queers.

To you, life is worthless and not worth living unless you can lie about something. Anything and everything that ever went wrong in your life was the fault of someone else. And you're now facing your own mortality and the time closing down on you until a slow, painful and ugly death of an AIDS sufferer.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" demean those that demean "don't rump", the grand wizard of the kkk(always small letters) & leader of the neo-nazis.
Meanwhile:
The Lincoln Memorial was desecrated with red spray paint.
"don't rump" (always small letters) has given white supremacist kkk(always small letters) & neo-nazis (always small letters) the go ahead for more violence. Since "don't rump", during its campaign, endorsed the kkk(always small letters), white supremacists have gathered in nearly(more?) one thousand organizations. kkk(always small letters), & neo-nazis(always small letters) find rich territory, uniting with many racist biker groups(always small letters).
Within the past week alone, "don't rump" added enough shit to the nation to increase racist gatherings to many thousands (tens of thousands?) of GROUPS.
all hail "don't rump" (always small letters), "grand wizard of the kkk" (always small letters) & the new leader of the neo-nazis(always small letters).....raise torches or give the nazi salute, to endorse whatever hate you generate the most.

Lincoln was a Republican. NAZI's were left wing fanatics. The name stands for National Socialist People's Party. The KKK(not small letters to "wake-me-up") were Democrats. I knew Sonny Barger from Linstrom and Self Harley-Davidson dealer who was one of the founders of the Hell's Angels and he didn't have a racist bone in his body. He was also part Indian I believe.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" knows Hell's Angels..... one of few statements of "wake-me-up", that I believe. As far as Native Tribes blood being in a Hell's Angel, Hitler may have been part jewish.
the kkk(always small letters) were democrats, till the re-pubic-lick-uns showed them that re-pubic-lick-uns could hate more. Anyhow, white hatred runs threw all america.... even among AGW denier liar whiners.

You forgot to quote me where I threatened the life of your "wife". This is pretty comical because the spitting hatred for everyone and everything around you is something I'm quite familiar with. Since I worked on devices to detect HIV and AIDS I heard that attitude many times before and all from queers.

To you, life is worthless and not worth living unless you can lie about something. Anything and everything that ever went wrong in your life was the fault of someone else. And you're now facing your own mortality and the time closing down on you until a slow, painful and ugly death of an AIDS sufferer.

Stuff your bigotry elsewhere dude.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:

Wake wrote:

litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" demean those that demean "don't rump", the grand wizard of the kkk(always small letters) & leader of the neo-nazis.
Meanwhile:
The Lincoln Memorial was desecrated with red spray paint.
"don't rump" (always small letters) has given white supremacist kkk(always small letters) & neo-nazis (always small letters) the go ahead for more violence. Since "don't rump", during its campaign, endorsed the kkk(always small letters), white supremacists have gathered in nearly(more?) one thousand organizations. kkk(always small letters), & neo-nazis(always small letters) find rich territory, uniting with many racist biker groups(always small letters).
Within the past week alone, "don't rump" added enough shit to the nation to increase racist gatherings to many thousands (tens of thousands?) of GROUPS.
all hail "don't rump" (always small letters), "grand wizard of the kkk" (always small letters) & the new leader of the neo-nazis(always small letters).....raise torches or give the nazi salute, to endorse whatever hate you generate the most.

Lincoln was a Republican. NAZI's were left wing fanatics. The name stands for National Socialist People's Party. The KKK(not small letters to "wake-me-up") were Democrats. I knew Sonny Barger from Linstrom and Self Harley-Davidson dealer who was one of the founders of the Hell's Angels and he didn't have a racist bone in his body. He was also part Indian I believe.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" knows Hell's Angels..... one of few statements of "wake-me-up", that I believe. As far as Native Tribes blood being in a Hell's Angel, Hitler may have been part jewish.
the kkk(always small letters) were democrats, till the re-pubic-lick-uns showed them that re-pubic-lick-uns could hate more. Anyhow, white hatred runs threw all america.... even among AGW denier liar whiners.

You forgot to quote me where I threatened the life of your "wife". This is pretty comical because the spitting hatred for everyone and everything around you is something I'm quite familiar with. Since I worked on devices to detect HIV and AIDS I heard that attitude many times before and all from queers.

To you, life is worthless and not worth living unless you can lie about something. Anything and everything that ever went wrong in your life was the fault of someone else. And you're now facing your own mortality and the time closing down on you until a slow, painful and ugly death of an AIDS sufferer.

Stuff your bigotry elsewhere dude.

Your comments also were clearly recognizable.

Into the Night wrote:
This forum happens to automatically label who is making the comments. My arguments don't need to change. The principles they come from have not changed.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed:... You forgot to quote me where I threatened the life of your "wife". And you're now facing your own mortality and the time closing down on you until a slow, painful and ugly death of an AIDS sufferer.

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.

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.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: ..... suggests you work in a sewer.

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.