Remember me
▼ Content

What is the Greenhouse Effect?



Page 3 of 5<12345>
19-08-2017 10:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You cannot heat the surface with a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics). You are attempting to describe a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order by using Magick Photons.

You cannot reduce the radiance of the Earth and use that to increase the temperature of the Earth (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.


The gas [air] is warmer than the surface.

Nope.
GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse gases absorbing some of earth's radiance does not reduce earth's radiance. It just reduces radiance that is leaving the atmosphere and going off into space.

Welcome to your new paradox. You are also still violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
GreenMan wrote:
There is no such thing as a Magick Bouncing Photon, AGW Denier.

That's what I keep telling you, but you keep trying to use that argument.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-08-2017 15:39
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: NONE of the animals you mentioned needed conservation efforts to survive.

Its good to know that all animals can be hunted in great quantities all year round & they just keep multiplying. Thank you for showing conservation was never needed.
19-08-2017 16:27
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote:no conservation necessary.

All the animals mentioned (& many more) needed severe conservation measures to survive. While you're being deluded by your pretend "we need future sigh-ants", you are also deluded by your own "closed eyes" studies.


Heh. NONE of the animals you mentioned needed conservation efforts to survive.


And yet this is why Washington state has set limits on what can be hunted and when http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/cougar_mgmt_removal/. This goes back to this is the internet and you can post anything you like. That is why you do not believe in referencing material that is online to support your claims. You believe that by being aggressive that others will back down. I see that a lot on the internet which is why I tend to ignore people like you.

@Gasguzzler, you might like this author. He does seem to say that there are only 2 types of people in Michigan, Yoopers and those who wish they were yoopers. http://www.josephheywood.com/woods.html


@All,
What ITN and Litesong are missing is that if conservation works for wildlife then what would keep it from working for other things like protecting our atmosphere and environment both ? Conservation in wildlife shows that proper regulation can help to improve a situation.
19-08-2017 16:30
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

Welcome to your new paradox. You are also still violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.




Maybe you can explain how the Stefan-Boltzmann law is being violated ? Just saying it does does not allow anyone to understand why you think it does.
19-08-2017 16:33
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

WRONG. Direct heating takes place as soon as the Sun comes up, and continues through the day. Have you noticed how fast the Earth warms in the morning? Even at six or seven am?




And yet the warmest part of the day is about 4 hours after the Sun reaches it's zenith. For Seattle, Wa. https://www.google.com/search?q=weather+seattle+washington&oq=weather+seattle+washington&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.6255j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Edited on 19-08-2017 16:33
20-08-2017 03:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote:no conservation necessary.

All the animals mentioned (& many more) needed severe conservation measures to survive. While you're being deluded by your pretend "we need future sigh-ants", you are also deluded by your own "closed eyes" studies.


Heh. NONE of the animals you mentioned needed conservation efforts to survive.


And yet this is why Washington state has set limits on what can be hunted and when ...deleted redundant link...

Hunting limits are not the kind of conservation we were discussing. If you want to discuss hunting limits as conservation, fine, but nothing had to happen because of 'climate change'.
James_ wrote:
This goes back to this is the internet and you can post anything you like. That is why you do not believe in referencing material that is online to support your claims. You believe that by being aggressive that others will back down. I see that a lot on the internet which is why I tend to ignore people like you.

The internet is not the Oracle of Truth. Don't treat it like one.
James_ wrote:
What ITN and Litesong are missing is that if conservation works for wildlife then what would keep it from working for other things like protecting our atmosphere and environment both ?

We don't hunt the Sun. Just because we have various laws doesn't justify oligarchy or state sponsored religions.

The atmosphere doesn't need protecting. It takes care of itself quite well on its own. Laws aren't needed to protect the environment. People do that anyway. The federal government has no authority in that area.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-08-2017 03:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Welcome to your new paradox. You are also still violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.




Maybe you can explain how the Stefan-Boltzmann law is being violated ? Just saying it does does not allow anyone to understand why you think it does.


You want me to explain it yet AGAIN?

radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

Radiance is proportional to temperature, never inversely proportional.

You are trying to reduce radiance and increase temperature at the same time.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-08-2017 03:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

WRONG. Direct heating takes place as soon as the Sun comes up, and continues through the day. Have you noticed how fast the Earth warms in the morning? Even at six or seven am?




And yet the warmest part of the day is about 4 hours after the Sun reaches it's zenith. For Seattle, Wa. ...deleted redundant link...


Irrelevant. The day starts to become warmer the minute the Sun comes up.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-08-2017 10:59
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You cannot heat the surface with a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics). You are attempting to describe a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order by using Magick Photons.

You cannot reduce the radiance of the Earth and use that to increase the temperature of the Earth (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.


The gas [air] is warmer than the surface.

Nope.
GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse gases absorbing some of earth's radiance does not reduce earth's radiance. It just reduces radiance that is leaving the atmosphere and going off into space.

Welcome to your new paradox. You are also still violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
GreenMan wrote:
There is no such thing as a Magick Bouncing Photon, AGW Denier.

That's what I keep telling you, but you keep trying to use that argument.


No, I'm not violating your favorite law [or is it your second favorite?].
The air is warmer during summer than the surface, during the day time.
"The ground is cooler in summer and warmer in winter than the air above it."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-temperature-of-the-earths-inter/


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 20-08-2017 10:59
20-08-2017 18:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You cannot heat the surface with a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics). You are attempting to describe a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order by using Magick Photons.

You cannot reduce the radiance of the Earth and use that to increase the temperature of the Earth (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.


The gas [air] is warmer than the surface.

Nope.
GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse gases absorbing some of earth's radiance does not reduce earth's radiance. It just reduces radiance that is leaving the atmosphere and going off into space.

Welcome to your new paradox. You are also still violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
GreenMan wrote:
There is no such thing as a Magick Bouncing Photon, AGW Denier.

That's what I keep telling you, but you keep trying to use that argument.


No, I'm not violating your favorite law [or is it your second favorite?].
The air is warmer during summer than the surface, during the day time.
"The ground is cooler in summer and warmer in winter than the air above it."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-temperature-of-the-earths-inter/


As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.
21-08-2017 05:59
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
21-08-2017 17:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


You'll have to excuse my ignorance but it seems that the surface is absorbing background radiation (heat). Of course lightning can come from the surface and not the sky https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/580/why-does-lightning-strike-from-the-ground-up
21-08-2017 18:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Again that experiment had absolutely nothing to do with what the original statement was. Either you are lying about this on purpose or you are too stupid to even understand what was said.
22-08-2017 07:45
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Again that experiment had absolutely nothing to do with what the original statement was. Either you are lying about this on purpose or you are too stupid to even understand what was said.


The original statement was regarding whether or not the air temperature is warmer than the surface. You are the idiot.

It's relevance is in regard to whether Professor Parrot Face's grounds for denial are legitimate. His BS about breaking laws because you can't cook coffee with ice go right out the door. If the air temperature is even a little warmer than the ground temperature, then the air can heat the ground. It also means that there is some other mysterious force causing the air temperature to exceed its only source of heat, according to the professor's argument. How could the air get warmer than the ground, if the ground is all that is heating it? The answer to that is greenhouse gases, which the professor denies. So that experiment that I linked proves the existence of something that is causing additional heat to be applied to the air.

Do you have reading comprehension issues, or do you just have a hard time paying attention? A better way of getting to the bottom of it is to ask questions of your elders, rather than challenging them, like they are at the same level of maturity as you.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
22-08-2017 17:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Again that experiment had absolutely nothing to do with what the original statement was. Either you are lying about this on purpose or you are too stupid to even understand what was said.


The original statement was regarding whether or not the air temperature is warmer than the surface. You are the idiot.

It's relevance is in regard to whether Professor Parrot Face's grounds for denial are legitimate. His BS about breaking laws because you can't cook coffee with ice go right out the door. If the air temperature is even a little warmer than the ground temperature, then the air can heat the ground. It also means that there is some other mysterious force causing the air temperature to exceed its only source of heat, according to the professor's argument. How could the air get warmer than the ground, if the ground is all that is heating it? The answer to that is greenhouse gases, which the professor denies. So that experiment that I linked proves the existence of something that is causing additional heat to be applied to the air.

Do you have reading comprehension issues, or do you just have a hard time paying attention? A better way of getting to the bottom of it is to ask questions of your elders, rather than challenging them, like they are at the same level of maturity as you.


I don't think that you're bright enough to know what "surface" means. Plain dry dirt will absorb the entire spectrum of sunlight. It has an insulation factor about 10% of the best insulators we have - polystyrene foam.

That means that anything below an inch or so below the surface is insulated from the sun's heat.

Only someone as stupid as you are would offer a "study" of ground temperature 12' below the surface in arctic areas or 3' in temperate regions.

Not to mention that there are few areas of open ground since there is this stuff called "vegetation" which absorbs the sun's radiation and then in summer dies off and dries to the point where it can actually heat to an ignition point causing forest fires.

Tell us stupid - how many times has the air been heated to the point where it would cause forest fires of and by itself?

So, stupid, the ground heats the air as ANYONE that has ever looked at the air curling off of an asphalt road on a summer day could tell you.

We do not need morons making the world's idiocy so flagrant.
22-08-2017 17:35
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]James_ wrote:What ITN and Litesong are missing is that if conservation works for wildlife then what would keep it from working for other things like protecting our atmosphere and environment both ? Conservation in wildlife shows that proper regulation can help to improve a situation.

James..... Why did you think my reply to "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight", about animal conservation, was NOT sarcastic & derisive towards "badnight" & its continued non-education?
Edited on 22-08-2017 17:35
22-08-2017 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You cannot heat the surface with a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics). You are attempting to describe a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order by using Magick Photons.

You cannot reduce the radiance of the Earth and use that to increase the temperature of the Earth (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument doesn't work.


The gas [air] is warmer than the surface.

Nope.
GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse gases absorbing some of earth's radiance does not reduce earth's radiance. It just reduces radiance that is leaving the atmosphere and going off into space.

Welcome to your new paradox. You are also still violating the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
GreenMan wrote:
There is no such thing as a Magick Bouncing Photon, AGW Denier.

That's what I keep telling you, but you keep trying to use that argument.


No, I'm not violating your favorite law [or is it your second favorite?].
The air is warmer during summer than the surface, during the day time.
"The ground is cooler in summer and warmer in winter than the air above it."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-temperature-of-the-earths-inter/


As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Quite right. That's the contextomy. He is taking the quote out of context.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-08-2017 21:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
...deleted Holy Link...

A contextomy is a lie. You just did it again. Everyt ime you quote stuff out of context, you are lying.
GreenMan wrote:
There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Nope. Everywhere.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-08-2017 21:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James_ wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


You'll have to excuse my ignorance but it seems that the surface is absorbing background radiation (heat). Of course lightning can come from the surface and not the sky https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/580/why-does-lightning-strike-from-the-ground-up


Lightning does not strike from either the ground or the sky.

Lightning is just a giant spark from a cloud that gets charged up from falling rain. The feelers you see coming up from the ground are the same thing as the feelers coming down from the cloud. Only when two happen to touch is a path opened for the main stroke.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-08-2017 21:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Again that experiment had absolutely nothing to do with what the original statement was. Either you are lying about this on purpose or you are too stupid to even understand what was said.


Heh. Probably both.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-08-2017 21:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Again that experiment had absolutely nothing to do with what the original statement was. Either you are lying about this on purpose or you are too stupid to even understand what was said.


The original statement was regarding whether or not the air temperature is warmer than the surface. You are the idiot.

My original statement stands. The surface is generally warmer than air.
GreenMan wrote:
It's relevance is in regard to whether Professor Parrot Face's grounds for denial are legitimate.

Of course they are. That's why you are trying any tactic you can to prove your religion is the One True Church of Global Warming religion, including taking stuff out of context (and lying by doing so).
GreenMan wrote:
His BS about breaking laws because you can't cook coffee with ice go right out the door.

It does??? You just trying making hot coffee with ice!
GreenMan wrote:
If the air temperature is even a little warmer than the ground temperature, then the air can heat the ground.

True. This sometimes happens.
GreenMan wrote:
It also means that there is some other mysterious force causing the air temperature to exceed its only source of heat, according to the professor's argument.

And that mysterious force is your Magick Holy Gas, right?
GreenMan wrote:
How could the air get warmer than the ground, if the ground is all that is heating it?

Easy. It is heated by nearby ground and moves in over colder ground. Air is a fluid, you see.
GreenMan wrote:
The answer to that is greenhouse gases, which the professor denies.

Carbon dioxide is not a source of energy. It can't raise the temperature.
GreenMan wrote:
So that experiment that I linked proves the existence of something that is causing additional heat to be applied to the air.

All you are proving is that you love to take stuff out of context to 'prove' your Religion is true.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you have reading comprehension issues,

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is taking stuff out context, largely because you are unable to properly determine what you are reading.
GreenMan wrote:
or do you just have a hard time paying attention?

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is not paying attention.
GreenMan wrote:
A better way of getting to the bottom of it is to ask questions of your elders, rather than challenging them, like they are at the same level of maturity as you.

You are basing your argument on your age???

False authority.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-08-2017 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Again that experiment had absolutely nothing to do with what the original statement was. Either you are lying about this on purpose or you are too stupid to even understand what was said.


The original statement was regarding whether or not the air temperature is warmer than the surface. You are the idiot.

It's relevance is in regard to whether Professor Parrot Face's grounds for denial are legitimate. His BS about breaking laws because you can't cook coffee with ice go right out the door. If the air temperature is even a little warmer than the ground temperature, then the air can heat the ground. It also means that there is some other mysterious force causing the air temperature to exceed its only source of heat, according to the professor's argument. How could the air get warmer than the ground, if the ground is all that is heating it? The answer to that is greenhouse gases, which the professor denies. So that experiment that I linked proves the existence of something that is causing additional heat to be applied to the air.

Do you have reading comprehension issues, or do you just have a hard time paying attention? A better way of getting to the bottom of it is to ask questions of your elders, rather than challenging them, like they are at the same level of maturity as you.


I don't think that you're bright enough to know what "surface" means. Plain dry dirt will absorb the entire spectrum of sunlight. It has an insulation factor about 10% of the best insulators we have - polystyrene foam.

That means that anything below an inch or so below the surface is insulated from the sun's heat.

Only someone as stupid as you are would offer a "study" of ground temperature 12' below the surface in arctic areas or 3' in temperate regions.

Not to mention that there are few areas of open ground since there is this stuff called "vegetation" which absorbs the sun's radiation and then in summer dies off and dries to the point where it can actually heat to an ignition point causing forest fires.

More typically brush fires. That's where the vegetation dries enough. The actual point of ignition is not the heat of the dry vegetation (not hot enough!) but is usually a bit of dew that collected in the wrong place at the wrong time to focus the Sun's rays on the dry material.

Forest fires are usually started by lightning, careless people, and arsonists.

Wake wrote:
Tell us stupid - how many times has the air been heated to the point where it would cause forest fires of and by itself?

Never. The air never gets hot enough to start a fire by itself, unless that fire is an unstable material such as nitroglycerine.
Wake wrote:
So, stupid, the ground heats the air as ANYONE that has ever looked at the air curling off of an asphalt road on a summer day could tell you.

Don't even need the asphalt (though that's often the best place to see it). You will see heat shimmer off of ocean water, sand, even trees. It's a real problem for telescopes, especially solar telescopes.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
23-08-2017 05:13
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
...deleted Holy Link...

A contextomy is a lie. You just did it again. Everyt ime you quote stuff out of context, you are lying.
GreenMan wrote:
There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Nope. Everywhere.


I'm not taking anything out of context you morons, lol. My original statement was that the air is warmer than the ground, but I messed around and used the word surface. That left it open for you morons argue about the difference between the "surface," and the "ground" just beneath the surface. The links I posted both support what I was saying, and not "out of context."

If you guys are so sure of yourself, go do a search on ground versus air temperature, and see what you find. You will find what I am saying. The air gets hotter than the ground, including the surface [if anyone can figure out how to measure the top molecules of surface, to appease the idiots].


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
23-08-2017 05:40
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
http://www.robotroom.com/Weather-Station-Data-3.html

There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Again that experiment had absolutely nothing to do with what the original statement was. Either you are lying about this on purpose or you are too stupid to even understand what was said.


The original statement was regarding whether or not the air temperature is warmer than the surface. You are the idiot.

It's relevance is in regard to whether Professor Parrot Face's grounds for denial are legitimate. His BS about breaking laws because you can't cook coffee with ice go right out the door. If the air temperature is even a little warmer than the ground temperature, then the air can heat the ground. It also means that there is some other mysterious force causing the air temperature to exceed its only source of heat, according to the professor's argument. How could the air get warmer than the ground, if the ground is all that is heating it? The answer to that is greenhouse gases, which the professor denies. So that experiment that I linked proves the existence of something that is causing additional heat to be applied to the air.

Do you have reading comprehension issues, or do you just have a hard time paying attention? A better way of getting to the bottom of it is to ask questions of your elders, rather than challenging them, like they are at the same level of maturity as you.


I don't think that you're bright enough to know what "surface" means. Plain dry dirt will absorb the entire spectrum of sunlight. It has an insulation factor about 10% of the best insulators we have - polystyrene foam.

That means that anything below an inch or so below the surface is insulated from the sun's heat.

Only someone as stupid as you are would offer a "study" of ground temperature 12' below the surface in arctic areas or 3' in temperate regions.

Not to mention that there are few areas of open ground since there is this stuff called "vegetation" which absorbs the sun's radiation and then in summer dies off and dries to the point where it can actually heat to an ignition point causing forest fires.

Tell us stupid - how many times has the air been heated to the point where it would cause forest fires of and by itself?

So, stupid, the ground heats the air as ANYONE that has ever looked at the air curling off of an asphalt road on a summer day could tell you.

We do not need morons making the world's idiocy so flagrant.


If we don't need morons making the world's idiocy so flagrant, what are you doing here shooting off your moron mouth?

The second link, which you keep dodging, kills your argument. Is that why you keep attacking my using the first one? They are both saying the same thing. The earth is a heat sink to the air, at times. And that is why the ground temperature a few meters below the surface stay at close to the same temperature as the annual mean temperature of the region.

That's not to imply that the ground is always cooler. It [that dirt that maintains a temperature close to regional average] acts as an additional heat source in the colder months. Yes, yes, I know, it ain't much of one, because of all the insulation between it and the surface, but it is still affecting the air temperature slightly. The two are so closely tied together, that you could actually just measure the temperature of the ground 3 meters deep at any time during the year, and see what the average annual temperature for that area is.

If you can understand that, then you can proceed to understand why Climate Change is such a gradual process. In order for the climate of a region to change, the ground 3 meters deep has to change. It has to either increase or decrease in temperature. That increase or decrease is felt in the annual average air temperature.

If you can comprehend all that, then you should be able to use your head to figure out what the actual heat load of the dirt is, and determine what our increase should be, based on the amount of greenhouse gas in the air. Because greenhouse gas has been demonstrated to be an additional heat source for the planet [or ground, if you will].


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
23-08-2017 16:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
...deleted Holy Link...

A contextomy is a lie. You just did it again. Everyt ime you quote stuff out of context, you are lying.
GreenMan wrote:
There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Nope. Everywhere.


I'm not taking anything out of context you morons, lol. My original statement was that the air is warmer than the ground, but I messed around and used the word surface. That left it open for you morons argue about the difference between the "surface," and the "ground" just beneath the surface. The links I posted both support what I was saying, and not "out of context."

If you guys are so sure of yourself, go do a search on ground versus air temperature, and see what you find. You will find what I am saying. The air gets hotter than the ground, including the surface [if anyone can figure out how to measure the top molecules of surface, to appease the idiots].


This is the level of you millennials - a normal person would simply use a good thermometer and measure the surface temperature of the ground and the air two feet above it and six feet above it and would be able to tell.

But some juvenile fool says "Go look it up on google."

Thanks for that demonstration of your lack of knowledge.
23-08-2017 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
...deleted Holy Link...

A contextomy is a lie. You just did it again. Everyt ime you quote stuff out of context, you are lying.
GreenMan wrote:
There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Nope. Everywhere.


I'm not taking anything out of context you morons, lol.

Compounding the lie of a contextomy by lying about whether you made a contextomy is only making it worse, dude.
GreenMan wrote:
My original statement was that the air is warmer than the ground, but I messed around and used the word surface.
Your original intent was the surface. Your original intent was to discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are lying once again by attempting a contextomy.
GreenMan wrote:
That left it open for you morons argue about the difference between the "surface," and the "ground" just beneath the surface.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is making this argument. You are doing in an effort to distract with a strawman.
GreenMan wrote:
The links I posted both support what I was saying, and not "out of context."

A repeat of the compounding lie.
GreenMan wrote:
If you guys are so sure of yourself, go do a search on ground versus air temperature, and see what you find.
You go try reading the articles YOU quoted for once. No one here needs to prove a negative.
GreenMan wrote:
You will find what I am saying. The air gets hotter than the ground, including the surface [if anyone can figure out how to measure the top molecules of surface, to appease the idiots].

Well, since you apparently don't know what a contact thermometer is, that's your own problem.

They really are easy to make. Have you tried the local auto parts store?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
23-08-2017 21:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
...deleted Holy Link...

A contextomy is a lie. You just did it again. Everyt ime you quote stuff out of context, you are lying.
GreenMan wrote:
There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Nope. Everywhere.


I'm not taking anything out of context you morons, lol. My original statement was that the air is warmer than the ground, but I messed around and used the word surface. That left it open for you morons argue about the difference between the "surface," and the "ground" just beneath the surface. The links I posted both support what I was saying, and not "out of context."

If you guys are so sure of yourself, go do a search on ground versus air temperature, and see what you find. You will find what I am saying. The air gets hotter than the ground, including the surface [if anyone can figure out how to measure the top molecules of surface, to appease the idiots].


This is the level of you millennials - a normal person would simply use a good thermometer and measure the surface temperature of the ground and the air two feet above it and six feet above it and would be able to tell.

But some juvenile fool says "Go look it up on google."

Thanks for that demonstration of your lack of knowledge.


That pretty well sums it up.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
24-08-2017 12:31
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
...deleted Holy Link...

A contextomy is a lie. You just did it again. Everyt ime you quote stuff out of context, you are lying.
GreenMan wrote:
There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Nope. Everywhere.


I'm not taking anything out of context you morons, lol. My original statement was that the air is warmer than the ground, but I messed around and used the word surface. That left it open for you morons argue about the difference between the "surface," and the "ground" just beneath the surface. The links I posted both support what I was saying, and not "out of context."

If you guys are so sure of yourself, go do a search on ground versus air temperature, and see what you find. You will find what I am saying. The air gets hotter than the ground, including the surface [if anyone can figure out how to measure the top molecules of surface, to appease the idiots].


This is the level of you millennials - a normal person would simply use a good thermometer and measure the surface temperature of the ground and the air two feet above it and six feet above it and would be able to tell.

But some juvenile fool says "Go look it up on google."

Thanks for that demonstration of your lack of knowledge.


Funny all this knowledge you seem to have, but no indication what so ever of your ability to use it to understand anything. It is, as you say, and easy thing to do. Yet you haven't even bothered to do it, so see if you are actually right. Is that because you aren't so sure of yourself?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
24-08-2017 17:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
...deleted Holy Link...

A contextomy is a lie. You just did it again. Everyt ime you quote stuff out of context, you are lying.
GreenMan wrote:
There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Nope. Everywhere.


I'm not taking anything out of context you morons, lol. My original statement was that the air is warmer than the ground, but I messed around and used the word surface. That left it open for you morons argue about the difference between the "surface," and the "ground" just beneath the surface. The links I posted both support what I was saying, and not "out of context."

If you guys are so sure of yourself, go do a search on ground versus air temperature, and see what you find. You will find what I am saying. The air gets hotter than the ground, including the surface [if anyone can figure out how to measure the top molecules of surface, to appease the idiots].


This is the level of you millennials - a normal person would simply use a good thermometer and measure the surface temperature of the ground and the air two feet above it and six feet above it and would be able to tell.

But some juvenile fool says "Go look it up on google."

Thanks for that demonstration of your lack of knowledge.


Funny all this knowledge you seem to have, but no indication what so ever of your ability to use it to understand anything. It is, as you say, and easy thing to do. Yet you haven't even bothered to do it, so see if you are actually right. Is that because you aren't so sure of yourself?


Your idea of "right" is that it's written someplace. You understand nothing but hey, it's written someplace.
25-08-2017 01:43
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything. Those comments have to do with the earth 10-12 feet below the surface meaning that you are lying on purpose.


Nah, I wasn't lying at all, on purpose or by mistake. Here is an experiment that some guy did, that clearly indicates the air is warmer than the surface. In fact, his experiments show that the air a few feet above the air at the surface, is warmer.
...deleted Holy Link...

A contextomy is a lie. You just did it again. Everyt ime you quote stuff out of context, you are lying.
GreenMan wrote:
There are places that the ground does getting warmer than the air, but those are mostly man-made structures, and deserts that are above solid bedrock.


Nope. Everywhere.


I'm not taking anything out of context you morons, lol. My original statement was that the air is warmer than the ground, but I messed around and used the word surface. That left it open for you morons argue about the difference between the "surface," and the "ground" just beneath the surface. The links I posted both support what I was saying, and not "out of context."

If you guys are so sure of yourself, go do a search on ground versus air temperature, and see what you find. You will find what I am saying. The air gets hotter than the ground, including the surface [if anyone can figure out how to measure the top molecules of surface, to appease the idiots].


This is the level of you millennials - a normal person would simply use a good thermometer and measure the surface temperature of the ground and the air two feet above it and six feet above it and would be able to tell.

But some juvenile fool says "Go look it up on google."

Thanks for that demonstration of your lack of knowledge.


Funny all this knowledge you seem to have, but no indication what so ever of your ability to use it to understand anything. It is, as you say, and easy thing to do. Yet you haven't even bothered to do it, so see if you are actually right. Is that because you aren't so sure of yourself?


Your idea of "right" is that it's written someplace. You understand nothing but hey, it's written someplace.


Did you know that you accuse other people of doing the things you do? For example, you said this to me, "As usual when you cannot win an argument you misrepresent anything." A lot of people do that, because we have a tendency to think that everyone is just like us, except not quite as smart.

But I'm not like you, because you are a complete idiot. The doctor said that I was just borderline. And to address you accusation: no, my idea of right is understanding something as close to reality as possible. And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.

What have you done to confirm your convictions?

I think that you have done nothing but read what other people have written, because after all, you did accuse me of it for no reason. "Your idea of "right" is that it's written someplace." So we know where you get your information from.

You can't explain how the air could be warmer than the ground, so instead of reviewing your own opinion, you chose to attack the one who is merely presenting the information. That shows your true character, even as much as analyzing the things you attack people with.

The "truth" is revealed in your final argument, "You understand nothing but hey, it's written someplace." We can apply that to you, the same as your first sentence. You always point out your own flaws in your attack on others, because that is all you can come up with. Poor you. You don't understand what we are dealing with, and that is why you attack people for providing information that doesn't fit in to your incorrect understanding of Global Warming.

Instead of opening your mind a little, so you could investigate whether the information is correct, you attack them for presenting it. That information proves beyond a doubt that you are wrong. A more intelligent way of handling it is to confirm it if possible. It might be possible by researching what other people have done regarding that information [ie. is there more information written down somewhere that either confirms or contradicts this data?] or you can even go out in your yard and take a few temperature measurements throughout the month and see for yourself.

But no, that requires way too much effort, doesn't it? And you don't want to know the truth anyway, do you. No, you are much more comfortable sitting on your fat ass on the couch. And you want to keep on sitting on your couch and doing nothing, so you parade around as a proud, know-it-all AGW Denier.

Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? I'm thinking not, and that you haven't even thought about how you will explain to your friends that you were wrong and sorry for misleading them. That will happen unless someone shoots your idiotic ass for shooting off your stupid mouth. The years ahead will just keep getting warmer, and you guys will eventually have to throw in the towel and admit defeat.

How will you feel then, when you realize that you spent all those years ignoring information that was right there in front of you, just so you could mislead your friends about something that is more important than anything known to man?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 25-08-2017 01:47
25-08-2017 02:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.
25-08-2017 10:44
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.


No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something.

Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
25-08-2017 18:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.


No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something.

Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant.


You decided to use a grade school name because you have grade school thoughts.
25-08-2017 22:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.


No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something.

Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant.


Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect.

Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth.

There...your math is checked.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-08-2017 22:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.


No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something.

Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant.


Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect.

Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth.

There...your math is checked.


Ice cores imply the amount of moisture deposition which means not a whole lot. They were using it mainly as a source of CO2 data. But the plant stomata data demonstrates that the CO2 contents of the ice cores is so far averaged over such a long time that it is essentially worthless.
25-08-2017 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.


No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something.

Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant.


Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect.

Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth.

There...your math is checked.


Ice cores imply the amount of moisture deposition which means not a whole lot. They were using it mainly as a source of CO2 data. But the plant stomata data demonstrates that the CO2 contents of the ice cores is so far averaged over such a long time that it is essentially worthless.


Looks like you are assuming the same math errors.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-08-2017 19:56
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.


No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something.

Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant.


Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect.

Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth.

There...your math is checked.


Ice cores make a good proxy for the average temperature of the earth, because the poles follow the earth's increases and decreases in average temperature. You can see that, if you compare the average antarctic temperature with the average earth temperature for the years that we have records of them both. There is some deviation, but it's just a few degrees, like what is going on now, with the polar regions warming about 3C more than the rest of the world.

As far as all those math errors you think you found, you must be nuts, lol. You can say what ever you want, but it is meaningless unless you put forth a little effort.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
26-08-2017 20:00
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.


No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something.

Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant.


Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect.

Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth.

There...your math is checked.


Ice cores imply the amount of moisture deposition which means not a whole lot. They were using it mainly as a source of CO2 data. But the plant stomata data demonstrates that the CO2 contents of the ice cores is so far averaged over such a long time that it is essentially worthless.


Funny that I was able to use CO2 data from ice cores to produce a very accurate backcast of the planet's climate.




~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
26-08-2017 22:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.


No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something.

Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant.


Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect.

Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth.

There...your math is checked.


Ice cores make a good proxy for the average temperature of the earth, because the poles follow the earth's increases and decreases in average temperature.

No they don't. The weather at a pole is just like anywhere else on Earth. It is different from the weather elsewhere.
GreenMan wrote:
You can see that, if you compare the average antarctic temperature with the average earth temperature for the years that we have records of them both.

You don't HAVE records for them both. You don't HAVE records for either one.
GreenMan wrote:
There is some deviation, but it's just a few degrees, like what is going on now, with the polar regions warming about 3C more than the rest of the world.

Argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
As far as all those math errors you think you found, you must be nuts, lol.

It is obvious you do not understand the mathematics of random numbers, probability, or statistics.
GreenMan wrote:
You can say what ever you want, but it is meaningless unless you put forth a little effort.

No, this is effort YOU have to put in. YOU are the only one that can take the time and effort to learn this stuff. I can't just pour knowledge into your head.

Personally, I think you're lazy and arrogant. It prevents you from learning these branches of mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
26-08-2017 22:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: And that is why I took the time and made the effort to understand Global Warming and Climate Change. I didn't do that by simply reading other people's opinions. I researched their data and built a Climate Model that proves beyond a doubt how Greenhouse Gases affect the climate of our planet.


Tell us - did you build that model out of Balsa wood? Built a model. Tell us all how you did that. Perhaps you made a drawing? Or used the fake data that Dr. Mann used?

That alone nullifies every single thing you've had to say.


No, I didn't use the same data that Dr. Mann used. I think he went with tree ring data. I went with ice core data. Or maybe he used ice core data, too. Doesn't matter. I didn't consult him or use his data. I used data from EPICA Dome C. It is still available, if you want to check my math or something.

Of course, you aren't interested in checking nobody's math, because that would require using some intelligence. What little you have is precious to you, so you will just sit this one out, and come up with something stupid to say, that you think is brilliant.


Math error. Statistical selection by opportunity. Manufactured data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. Assumption of data aspect.

Ice cores do not indicate the temperature of the Earth.

There...your math is checked.


Ice cores imply the amount of moisture deposition which means not a whole lot. They were using it mainly as a source of CO2 data. But the plant stomata data demonstrates that the CO2 contents of the ice cores is so far averaged over such a long time that it is essentially worthless.


Funny that I was able to use CO2 data from ice cores to produce a very accurate backcast of the planet's climate.



Funny how your manufactured numbers match up with a graph of manufactured numbers!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate What is the Greenhouse Effect?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist12812-03-2020 02:10
Greenhouse Gas and Warming11011-02-2020 17:48
Will Warm Winters Balance Out The Effects Of Greenhouse Gases?1410-02-2020 18:23
The Compound Effect and the Self-Interest of the Individual123-01-2020 16:46
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law74322-11-2019 04:54
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact