Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Effect and the 1909 Wood's Experiment



Page 1 of 4123>>>
Greenhouse Effect and the 1909 Wood's Experiment14-08-2017 15:43
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-08-2017 19:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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!

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work. You can't heat a hotter surface with a colder substance. You can't reduce radiance from a planet while the temperature is increasing.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'.


The Parrot Killer
14-08-2017 21:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
Edited on 14-08-2017 21:43
14-08-2017 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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.


Kinda like what happened to Newton when he tried to measure the speed of sound.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 06:38
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 07:17
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1526)
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


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
15-08-2017 07:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
15-08-2017 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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.

I don't think you understand the power of just a few psi of pressure difference.

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.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument yet again.

Carbon dioxide does not heat the surface. It can't.
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?

That's right. The surface is hotter than the air above it, generally speaking. You can't heat a hotter surface using a cooler gas. You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by radiance.

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?

Yes. It violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
GreenMan wrote:
I hope not, because we can't be doing that.

That's what you are attempting to do with your Magick Bouncing Photon argument.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't think anyone said anything about reducing radiance from a planet while the temperature is increasing.

If infrared energy is reduced as you describe (by redirection), and you use that redirection to heat the surface, you are violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
GreenMan wrote:
It's not being reduced, it's just being redirected.

Redirection IS reducing.
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.

Carbon dioxide does not produce heat.

It may be warmed by absorbing infrared light, but that is just another way for the surface to be cooled. The warmer gas quickly loses its energy to the rest of the atmosphere. ALL of it AND the surface emit infrared light to space.
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.'

Of course you will. The Church of Global Warming insists on this basic gospel. That doesn't change anything. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the Magick Bouncing Photon property you are describing.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 20:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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.

He does seem firmly entrenched in his religion, that's for sure.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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. This radiation goes off in all directions so it COULD heat things within a close enough range to be effected. 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.

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.

However, in the stratosphere it could retain heat because the atmosphere is thin enough that conduction is very much slower. However the radiation that points back towards the Earth couldn't travel very far before being trapped by other CO2 molecules. 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.

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

The entire idea of greenhouse gases is absurd on its very surface. 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.
16-08-2017 00:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 01:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.

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

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

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.

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".

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. Any meteorologist can predict that clouds will hold heat in but again it's meaningless to you since "there is nothing special about water."

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.

There "MAY" have been a Jesus? There is absolutely no doubt about that. Jesus is mentioned in the records of the Greeks, the Romans and the Hebrews. Chapters in the New Testament are written by people who actually knew him. Whether he was the son of God or not is up to you to determine but his existence is not in doubt.

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

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

I wrote a paper in 2002 that is still the reference for a safety device. 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. Is that how you see yourself?
Edited on 16-08-2017 01:47
16-08-2017 06:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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.

Yes it does. Any mass above absolute zero radiates.
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

Nothing contains heat. You cannot trap heat. The Earth as a whole does radiate because it has thermal energy. There is no conflict with the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this. Why are you confusing thermal energy and heat so much?
Wake wrote:
but individual molecules do not radiate simply because they are above absolute zero.

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

Surroundings are irrelevant. It makes no difference.
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.

No, I point out the flaws in your arguments.
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".

I completely understand heat through the atmosphere. Far better than you do it seems. When it comes to water vapor, there is nothing special about it.
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.

That is due to our ability to sweat. Nothing more.
Wake wrote:
Any meteorologist can predict that clouds will hold heat in

Wrong. Clouds do not hold heat. Nothing holds heat.
Wake wrote:
but again it's meaningless to you since "there is nothing special about water."

There isn't, other than both it's specific heat and conductivity being higher than dry air.
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.

Contextomy. We are talking about the thermal properties of water, not the need life has for it.
Wake wrote:
There "MAY" have been a Jesus?

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

That is not a proof. That is supporting evidence, nothing more.
Wake wrote:
Chapters in the New Testament are written by people who actually knew him.

Again, supporting evidence, not a proof.
Wake wrote:
Whether he was the son of God or not is up to you to determine

Actually, it is. I am expected to judge such a thing for myself to determine the validity of it.
Wake wrote:
but his existence is not in doubt.

You have given no proof. All you have given is supporting evidence.
Wake wrote:
You say things not because they need to be said but because you don't have anything better to do.

No, I say things because you make bad arguments of logic, occasional mistakes in physics, and mistakes in math. You also don't seem to understand philosophy at all.
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.

Contextomy. We are talking about the thermal properties of water. It is not an energy source. It has a higher specific heat than dry air. It conducts heat better than dry air. Liquid water (such as clouds) do this better than water vapor.
Wake wrote:
I could give you lists of papers on the subject but anything you don't understand you refer to as unrelated information.

Considering the unrelated contextomies you are presenting, there's a good probability of that.
Wake wrote:
I wrote a paper in 2002 that is still the reference for a safety device.

Non-sequitur.
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.

Since you don't mention this safety device so I can't judge. You should at least learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.
Wake wrote:
Is that how you see yourself?

I am not from Krypton. I need machines to fly. Guess that doesn't make me superman.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 06:19
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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. You just ignore things like my idea to prove whether or not greenhouse gases exist. 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. You are dodging that, because you know that the greenhouse that is absent of air will not warm above ambient. If you can prove otherwise, then we should revisit your hypothesis that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. If it weren't for greenhouse gases, we would be quite cold. That's because the surface of the earth his quite cold, compared to the air just above it. The air is warmer, usually. All you have to do is stick a thermometer in the ground, and compare that to one that is in air. And the reason it is warmer is because of greenhouse gases.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-08-2017 07:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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.

And what would that be? You haven't asked any!
GreenMan wrote:
You just ignore things like my idea to prove whether or not greenhouse gases exist.

Your idea doesn't prove anything.
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.

Why? What does that prove?
GreenMan wrote:
You are dodging that, because you know that the greenhouse that is absent of air will not warm above ambient.
That has more to do with the pressure difference, not anything else (assuming you built yourself one hell of a tank for a greenhouse!).
GreenMan wrote:
If you can prove otherwise, then we should revisit your hypothesis that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas.

You are forgetting the ideal gas law. You are also forgetting that the surfaces in either greenhouse will still absorb infrared energy just the same from the Sun (assuming BOTH greenhouses were built heavier than battle tanks).
GreenMan wrote:
If it weren't for greenhouse gases, we would be quite cold.

It would be the same temperature.

You again ignore the ISS paradox.
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:
The air is warmer, usually.

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

Bad test. The thermometer should be laid on top of the ground, not buried in it. Both thermometers should be in shade to avoid direct absorption from the Sun affecting the readings.
GreenMan wrote:
And the reason it is warmer is because of greenhouse gases.

Nope. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 11:01
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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


Stuff your shit, you AGW denier liar whiner!


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-08-2017 16:08
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GreenMan wrote: Stuff your shit, you AGW denier liar whiner!

Thank you for standing for truth.
More truth:
"don't rump" (always small letters) 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).
//////
More truth:
"don't rump" & its glowing orange hair & face flush, was only the reflection of the kkk(always small letters) bon fires.
Edited on 16-08-2017 16:15
16-08-2017 16:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1526)
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).


...and Litebeer has descended to the only racist on the CLIMATE DEBATE FORUM.

Care to comment on a climate issue Litebeer?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
16-08-2017 16:22
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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" proves it is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
////////
For years my primary mission was to show that many AGW denier liar whiners are also severe racists, even to the point that many AGW denier liar whiners will threaten AGW advocates.
16-08-2017 16:25
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1526)
Mission failed
Care to comment on a climate issue Litebeer?
Edited on 16-08-2017 16:26
16-08-2017 16:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.
16-08-2017 16:35
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1526)
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.


Liitebeer, Love it or leave it. Same goes for the USA.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
16-08-2017 17:18
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.

The Lincoln Memorial was desecrated with red spray paint.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling", a kkk(always small letters) & neo-nazi(always small letters) member says that Native Tribes have to leave the USA, along with Black Americans, Jewish Americans, Asians, Muslims & all other immigrants.
You can start by telling Elaine Chow she has to leave the USA.
"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" 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.
Edited on 16-08-2017 17:26
16-08-2017 17:29
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1526)
Would you care to comment on a climate topic Litebeer? There are plenty to choose from.
16-08-2017 17:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Would you care to comment on a climate topic Litebeer? There are plenty to choose from.


You don't really expect a mindless dolt to have any idea of what's going on around him do you?
16-08-2017 17:44
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1526)
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..
16-08-2017 17:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
16-08-2017 18:08
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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....

"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 fertilizer 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.
Edited on 16-08-2017 18:18
16-08-2017 18:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


Thought I'd read you this once and got a good laugh.

Lincoln was a Republican. NAZI's were left wing fanatics. The name stands for National Socialist People's Party. The KKK 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.

You are so stupid you couldn't even pick your nose.
16-08-2017 21:39
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.
16-08-2017 22:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
16-08-2017 23:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 23:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
16-08-2017 23:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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.

Of course they are. 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.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 23:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


In your case it needn't label them because you've clearly labeled yourself.
17-08-2017 03:34
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.

You must be bob burns(always small letters) from communist china (always small letters). If you ain't bob burns, you can't threaten like bob burns can.
Did you have access to my medical records? You should pay someone having access to private medical records a lot more money, to ensure their reports are accurate.
17-08-2017 08:49
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
17-08-2017 14:41
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


Night might not be very quick but he's a hell of a lot smarter than you. 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.

I would like to know what it is that you do for a living? The crap you spread around here suggests you work in a sewer.
17-08-2017 20:20
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" intimates it follows sewer trucks, smelling & licking up any poop that falls off the wagon. Its also why "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" likes the oil coal energy & re-pubic-lick-un boardroom propaganda PR poop. "wake-me-up" is sad that its anatomy doesn't allow licking its anus..... its dream is to be re-incarnated as a dog.
17-08-2017 23:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10196)
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.


Useless experiment. You are measuring underground.


The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 4123>>>





Join the debate Greenhouse Effect and the 1909 Wood's Experiment:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
So what if the Chinese fossil fuel industry pays me to spread lies about greenhouse gas?7515-11-2019 04:47
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact