do polar ice caps disprove ret?

  • 78 Replies
  • 11380 Views
?

Itchy_Arris

  • 415
  • Infinite Earth Movement Leader
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2015, 10:03:04 AM »

And yet, in space, in sunlight it's like 200 degrees or so.

Once you are in to the vaccuum of space, it is very difficult to cool down, since you have no air to conduct heat in to.

Right. So as the air gets thinner, it should get hotter!
What goes up, must come down.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2015, 10:25:01 AM »

And yet, in space, in sunlight it's like 200 degrees or so.

Once you are in to the vaccuum of space, it is very difficult to cool down, since you have no air to conduct heat in to.

Right. So as the air gets thinner, it should get hotter!

Actually the thin air at high altitudes is really cold because it's far away from any ground which heats up when the Sun shines on it.  Presure also has an effect on temperature, lower presure cooks things down while higher pressure heats things up.  Sunlight generally passes right through air without much interaction and so air doesn't convert much of the Sun's light into heat.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

Itchy_Arris

  • 415
  • Infinite Earth Movement Leader
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2015, 11:47:52 AM »

And yet, in space, in sunlight it's like 200 degrees or so.

Once you are in to the vaccuum of space, it is very difficult to cool down, since you have no air to conduct heat in to.

Right. So as the air gets thinner, it should get hotter!

Actually the thin air at high altitudes is really cold because it's far away from any ground which heats up when the Sun shines on it.  Presure also has an effect on temperature, lower presure cooks things down while higher pressure heats things up.  Sunlight generally passes right through air without much interaction and so air doesn't convert much of the Sun's light into heat.

You foundries use more fudge than Willy Wonka!
What goes up, must come down.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2015, 11:51:49 AM »
You foundries use more fudge than Willy Wonka!

What's that supposed to mean?  If there is evidence that I'm wrong then by all means post it.  If there is no evidence that I'm wrong then that means I'm right.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

Itchy_Arris

  • 415
  • Infinite Earth Movement Leader
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2015, 12:27:32 PM »
I meant roundies. You say it gets colder the higher you go due to the air being thinner, but when I pointed out that when there's no air at all it's very hot you need various convenient fudge factors to explain it.

It's obvious that JRS is right.
What goes up, must come down.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2015, 12:54:13 PM »
I meant roundies. You say it gets colder the higher you go due to the air being thinner, but when I pointed out that when there's no air at all it's very hot you need various convenient fudge factors to explain it.

It's obvious that JRS is right.

A vacuum is not hot, it has no temperature at all.  Heat is just molecular motion and if there are no molecules that can move then there is no heat.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

Itchy_Arris

  • 415
  • Infinite Earth Movement Leader
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2015, 02:51:35 PM »
I meant roundies. You say it gets colder the higher you go due to the air being thinner, but when I pointed out that when there's no air at all it's very hot you need various convenient fudge factors to explain it.

It's obvious that JRS is right.

A vacuum is not hot, it has no temperature at all.  Heat is just molecular motion and if there are no molecules that can move then there is no heat.

In space, in sunlight, it's hot. Very hot.
What goes up, must come down.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2015, 03:10:32 PM »
I meant roundies. You say it gets colder the higher you go due to the air being thinner, but when I pointed out that when there's no air at all it's very hot you need various convenient fudge factors to explain it.

It's obvious that JRS is right.

A vacuum is not hot, it has no temperature at all.  Heat is just molecular motion and if there are no molecules that can move then there is no heat.

In space, in sunlight, it's hot. Very hot.

Space isn't hot, the Sunlight makes objects in space hot.  When objects are not in direct sunlight in space then they get very cold.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #38 on: May 02, 2015, 09:01:20 AM »
Less gas means less retained heat.
so more gas means there should be more heat, right?
this is the implication of what you have said. contraposition, if you wish to be logical, but you do seem incapable of that.

Actually the thin air at high altitudes is really cold because it's far away from any ground which heats up when the Sun shines on it.  Presure also has an effect on temperature, lower presure cooks things down while higher pressure heats things up. 
so now the sun heats the ground, which heats up the air? that makes no sense, the sun should be heating the air. you're just admitted that the earth's heat comes from the ground, and yet you still rely on the sun. how?
i think you'll find pressure increases as temperature increases. learn a little math. pressure is a consequence of heat, not a cause.


Sunlight generally passes right through air without much interaction and so air doesn't convert much of the Sun's light into heat.
so the poles should be plenty warm, by that logic.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2015, 09:30:55 AM »
Less gas means less retained heat.
so more gas means there should be more heat, right?
this is the implication of what you have said. contraposition, if you wish to be logical, but you do seem incapable of that.

Actually the thin air at high altitudes is really cold because it's far away from any ground which heats up when the Sun shines on it.  Presure also has an effect on temperature, lower presure cooks things down while higher pressure heats things up. 
so now the sun heats the ground, which heats up the air? that makes no sense, the sun should be heating the air. you're just admitted that the earth's heat comes from the ground, and yet you still rely on the sun. how?
i think you'll find pressure increases as temperature increases. learn a little math. pressure is a consequence of heat, not a cause.


Sunlight generally passes right through air without much interaction and so air doesn't convert much of the Sun's light into heat.
so the poles should be plenty warm, by that logic.

Sinlight passes right through the air, hits the ground and becomes heat, then conducts into the air.  I don't get what's so hard to understand here.

The poles are so cold because of the low angle of the Sun.  Take a piece of paper and hold it so it faces the Sun, it will get quite warm.  Now take that piece of paper and hold it at an angle to the Sun and it won't get as hot.  The same thing happens at the poles.

Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers use the release of presure to lower the temperature of the carbon dioxide escaping it and it works so well that it becomes dry ice.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

?

LogicalKiller

  • 626
  • Atheist, Re'er and happy doctor of physics
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2015, 11:01:12 AM »
Less gas means less retained heat.
so more gas means there should be more heat, right?
this is the implication of what you have said. contraposition, if you wish to be logical, but you do seem incapable of that.

Actually the thin air at high altitudes is really cold because it's far away from any ground which heats up when the Sun shines on it.  Presure also has an effect on temperature, lower presure cooks things down while higher pressure heats things up. 
so now the sun heats the ground, which heats up the air? that makes no sense, the sun should be heating the air. you're just admitted that the earth's heat comes from the ground, and yet you still rely on the sun. how?
i think you'll find pressure increases as temperature increases. learn a little math. pressure is a consequence of heat, not a cause.


Sunlight generally passes right through air without much interaction and so air doesn't convert much of the Sun's light into heat.
so the poles should be plenty warm, by that logic.

Sinlight passes right through the air, hits the ground and becomes heat, then conducts into the air.  I don't get what's so hard to understand here.

The poles are so cold because of the low angle of the Sun.  Take a piece of paper and hold it so it faces the Sun, it will get quite warm.  Now take that piece of paper and hold it at an angle to the Sun and it won't get as hot.  The same thing happens at the poles.

Carbon dioxide fire extinguishers use the release of presure to lower the temperature of the carbon dioxide escaping it and it works so well that it becomes dry ice.

What's so difficult in understanding that less energy means less heat? Light, like any all matter is energy. And on the poles less energy gets to, therefore there is less heat. End of the story.
"I hadn't known there are so many idiots on the world until I launched the Internet." ~ Stanisław Lem
personally i think fairies share a common ancestor with humans

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2015, 04:35:43 PM »
What's so difficult in understanding that less energy means less heat? Light, like any all matter is energy. And on the poles less energy gets to, therefore there is less heat. End of the story.

You were addressing Jrowe just then right?
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #42 on: May 03, 2015, 02:10:14 AM »
25% of the suns energy is absorbed on average by the atmosphere.    The polar sun is not a particularly strong sunshine apart from at the edges of the ice sheets.    Similarly here in Helsinki Finland the Sunshine one month either side of midwinter is very weak.  A light frost will remain on a flat roof all day even when in full sunshine - same for water on a pond which will refreeze when broken even while in full winter sunshine.

Interestingly the weak helsinki winter midday sun should be as strong as the new zealand summer sun about 20 minutes after sunrise?   I dont think they compare though and have no answer for why they feel so very different.

In any case the north pole exists so what is the point of the argument exactly?
« Last Edit: May 03, 2015, 02:22:29 AM by Aliveandkicking »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #43 on: May 03, 2015, 09:49:01 AM »
And yet, in space, in sunlight it's like 200 degrees or so.
How did you measure the temperature of space?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #44 on: May 03, 2015, 12:45:40 PM »
Sinlight passes right through the air, hits the ground and becomes heat, then conducts into the air.  I don't get what's so hard to understand here.
why does the 'air' only get heated on the way out, not the way in? are you thinking about what you're writing, or just repeating bs?
as ice is more reflective, that should still make the poles much warmer.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #45 on: May 03, 2015, 12:51:45 PM »
Sinlight passes right through the air, hits the ground and becomes heat, then conducts into the air.  I don't get what's so hard to understand here.
why does the 'air' only get heated on the way out, not the way in? are you thinking about what you're writing, or just repeating bs?
as ice is more reflective, that should still make the poles much warmer.
Air can not absorb sun rays as well as the ground because it is a gas. The ground warms up as it is solid, this heat can be transferred to the air as it is not in radiation form. The poles are more reflective so the sun rays go into the atmosphere where they can not heat he air, they then go back out to space rather than heating the poles. Simple.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #46 on: May 03, 2015, 12:56:22 PM »
Sinlight passes right through the air, hits the ground and becomes heat, then conducts into the air.  I don't get what's so hard to understand here.
why does the 'air' only get heated on the way out, not the way in? are you thinking about what you're writing, or just repeating bs?
as ice is more reflective, that should still make the poles much warmer.
Air can not absorb sun rays as well as the ground because it is a gas. The ground warms up as it is solid, this heat can be transferred to the air as it is not in radiation form. The poles are more reflective so the sun rays go into the atmosphere where they can not heat he air, they then go back out to space rather than heating the poles. Simple.

so, let's just try to unpack that.
air cannot absorb radiation from the sun, only solids can, which then emit that heat. somehow, this increases the amount of heat in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics, and the heat in question is hotter when the surface absorbs more of it, rather than reflecting it.

incoherent.

so, are you saying the heat we fell on a sunny day does come from the ground?
if sunlight goes through so much air so easily, that should still warm the poles up plenty.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #47 on: May 03, 2015, 01:03:46 PM »
Sinlight passes right through the air, hits the ground and becomes heat, then conducts into the air.  I don't get what's so hard to understand here.
why does the 'air' only get heated on the way out, not the way in? are you thinking about what you're writing, or just repeating bs?
as ice is more reflective, that should still make the poles much warmer.
Air can not absorb sun rays as well as the ground because it is a gas. The ground warms up as it is solid, this heat can be transferred to the air as it is not in radiation form. The poles are more reflective so the sun rays go into the atmosphere where they can not heat he air, they then go back out to space rather than heating the poles. Simple.

so, let's just try to unpack that.
air cannot absorb radiation from the sun, only solids can, which then emit that heat. somehow, this increases the amount of heat in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics, and the heat in question is hotter when the surface absorbs more of it, rather than reflecting it.

incoherent.

so, are you saying the heat we fell on a sunny day does come from the ground?
if sunlight goes through so much air so easily, that should still warm the poles up plenty.
That is not what I'm saying. The heat we feel comes from the sun shining directly on you. I said air doesn't absorb sunlight as well, it still heats up a small amount. Also air refracts light, the more of it the sun goes through the weaker it is at ground level.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #48 on: May 03, 2015, 03:40:34 PM »
Sinlight passes right through the air, hits the ground and becomes heat, then conducts into the air.  I don't get what's so hard to understand here.
why does the 'air' only get heated on the way out, not the way in? are you thinking about what you're writing, or just repeating bs?
as ice is more reflective, that should still make the poles much warmer.
Air can not absorb sun rays as well as the ground because it is a gas. The ground warms up as it is solid, this heat can be transferred to the air as it is not in radiation form. The poles are more reflective so the sun rays go into the atmosphere where they can not heat he air, they then go back out to space rather than heating the poles. Simple.

so, let's just try to unpack that.
air cannot absorb radiation from the sun, only solids can, which then emit that heat. somehow, this increases the amount of heat in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics, and the heat in question is hotter when the surface absorbs more of it, rather than reflecting it.

incoherent.

so, are you saying the heat we fell on a sunny day does come from the ground?
if sunlight goes through so much air so easily, that should still warm the poles up plenty.

What law of thermodynamics is being broken?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #49 on: May 03, 2015, 03:58:55 PM »
so, let's just try to unpack that.
air cannot absorb radiation from the sun, only solids can, which then emit that heat. somehow, this increases the amount of heat in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics, and the heat in question is hotter when the surface absorbs more of it, rather than reflecting it.

Air does absorb a little bit of sunlight, but hardly any.

incoherent.

so, are you saying the heat we fell on a sunny day does come from the ground?

Sunlight also warms you up when it hits you and the heat from the ground conducts into the air making that warm too.

if sunlight goes through so much air so easily, that should still warm the poles up plenty.

The poles are not cold because of air blocking the Sun, they are cold because of the steep angle of the sunlight.  If it's day for you right now I want you to take a piece of paper outside and aim it so it's broad face is to the Sun and notice how warm it gets.  Then tilt the paper and so the broad face is not facing the Sun directly and notice how the paper doesn't get as warm.  That's what happens at the poles.  Here is a diagram that describes it pretty well:


The same amount of heat spread out over a larger area means that the ground doesn't heat up as much.  This is taught in elementary school, I don't know how you could avoid learning this.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #50 on: May 04, 2015, 06:36:40 AM »
The same amount of heat spread out over a larger area means that the ground doesn't heat up as much.  This is taught in elementary school, I don't know how you could avoid learning this.

For once, I have to disagree with your premise my friend.  You have made the mistake (probably inadvertently) of assuming that JRS either attended elementary school and/or graduated from it.  From his truly woeful ignorance of even the very basics of contemporary science, I would be guessing that he was home-schooled by parents who may have been of the Luddite variety, and very suspicious of modern science and technology.  Home-schooling generally focuses more on the humanities, arts, philosophy, and languages at the expense of the sciences and mathematics.

I would also guess that he has no high-school education or tertiary education.  It would be interesting if he could clarify these points, as it makes it extremely difficult to debate science with someone lacking in the appropriate skills set.
There's something in this forum that makes you can't speak well...

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #51 on: May 04, 2015, 11:44:20 AM »
so, fakeworlder aparantly means air refracting light without heating up the air much is going to actually result in losing energy, even though light isn;t directed at one tiny spot, and the refracted light will overlap with more light. but nope, apparently energy is just permanently lost.
rama instead seems to think energy can in fact be magically created from nothing by the ground.
round earthers aren't good at physics, huh?

and mikeman apparently thinks light is just a set of lines, rather than a constant, continuous spread. and zenner just has insults.

not a very good try, any of you.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #52 on: May 04, 2015, 12:37:51 PM »
so, let's just try to unpack that.
air cannot absorb radiation from the sun, only solids can, which then emit that heat. somehow, this increases the amount of heat in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics, and the heat in question is hotter when the surface absorbs more of it, rather than reflecting it.

incoherent.

so, are you saying the heat we fell on a sunny day does come from the ground?
if sunlight goes through so much air so easily, that should still warm the poles up plenty.
Let's make it clear. Heat=energy.

Air does absorb heat from the sun, and its temperature rises. But it does not absorb a lot of the heat. The ground, however, does absorb more heat that the air, and experiences a greater rise in temperature.

How does that contradict thermodynamics?

Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #53 on: May 04, 2015, 01:40:45 PM »
so, fakeworlder aparantly means air refracting light without heating up the air much is going to actually result in losing energy, even though light isn;t directed at one tiny spot, and the refracted light will overlap with more light. but nope, apparently energy is just permanently lost.
rama instead seems to think energy can in fact be magically created from nothing by the ground.
round earthers aren't good at physics, huh?

and mikeman apparently thinks light is just a set of lines, rather than a constant, continuous spread. and zenner just has insults.


not a very good try, any of you.
Air refracts light, meaning it loses some of its energy to air. This heats up the air SLIGHTLY. The more air it has to go through, the more it heats up SLIGHTLY the more energy it loses.

Also, light can be represented as a line because it is both a particle and a wave, meaning it can be seen as a set of lines (the midpoint of the wave)
The fact that it is represented as lines does not affect the continuity

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #54 on: May 06, 2015, 08:02:40 AM »
so, fakeworlder aparantly means air refracting light without heating up the air much is going to actually result in losing energy, even though light isn;t directed at one tiny spot, and the refracted light will overlap with more light. but nope, apparently energy is just permanently lost.
rama instead seems to think energy can in fact be magically created from nothing by the ground.
round earthers aren't good at physics, huh?

and mikeman apparently thinks light is just a set of lines, rather than a constant, continuous spread. and zenner just has insults.


not a very good try, any of you.
Air refracts light, meaning it loses some of its energy to air. This heats up the air SLIGHTLY. The more air it has to go through, the more it heats up SLIGHTLY the more energy it loses.

Also, light can be represented as a line because it is both a particle and a wave, meaning it can be seen as a set of lines (the midpoint of the wave)
The fact that it is represented as lines does not affect the continuity

yes it does. there should be no gaps between the lines if the illustration is to even begin to be accurate.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #55 on: May 06, 2015, 08:03:52 AM »
so, let's just try to unpack that.
air cannot absorb radiation from the sun, only solids can, which then emit that heat. somehow, this increases the amount of heat in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics, and the heat in question is hotter when the surface absorbs more of it, rather than reflecting it.

incoherent.

so, are you saying the heat we fell on a sunny day does come from the ground?
if sunlight goes through so much air so easily, that should still warm the poles up plenty.
Let's make it clear. Heat=energy.

Air does absorb heat from the sun, and its temperature rises. But it does not absorb a lot of the heat. The ground, however, does absorb more heat that the air, and experiences a greater rise in temperature.

How does that contradict thermodynamics?

don't forget we don't experience heat directly from the ground: we only experience in when it is passed to the air. so if the ground is going to make more of a change, it would need to end up hotter than the heat that went into it.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #56 on: May 06, 2015, 08:21:52 AM »
don't forget we don't experience heat directly from the ground: we only experience in when it is passed to the air. so if the ground is going to make more of a change, it would need to end up hotter than the heat that went into it.

What do you mean hotter than the heat?! Do you even know how the transfer of energy works? Heat is flowing energy. You can have negative heat, or positive heat (relative to who's giving/receiving heat). Heat always goes from higher temperature to lower temperature.

Sun gives air some energy. It also gives the ground a lot of energy. The ground then transfers some energy to the air again. So the air and ground heat up.

I am pretty sure you don't grasp physics like.. at all.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #57 on: May 07, 2015, 06:44:09 AM »
don't forget we don't experience heat directly from the ground: we only experience in when it is passed to the air. so if the ground is going to make more of a change, it would need to end up hotter than the heat that went into it.

What do you mean hotter than the heat?! Do you even know how the transfer of energy works? Heat is flowing energy. You can have negative heat, or positive heat (relative to who's giving/receiving heat). Heat always goes from higher temperature to lower temperature.

Sun gives air some energy. It also gives the ground a lot of energy. The ground then transfers some energy to the air again. So the air and ground heat up.

I am pretty sure you don't grasp physics like.. at all.

are you paying any attention? of course that makes no sense. that's what i'm saying.
the air cannot magically heat up because of the ground, and yet almost completely ignore the heat given to it by the sun. pay attention, try to be consistent. why does the ground heat up the air more than the sun?
how many times do i need to make a point for it to be so much as acknowledged?!
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #58 on: May 07, 2015, 07:36:20 AM »
don't forget we don't experience heat directly from the ground: we only experience in when it is passed to the air. so if the ground is going to make more of a change, it would need to end up hotter than the heat that went into it.

What do you mean hotter than the heat?! Do you even know how the transfer of energy works? Heat is flowing energy. You can have negative heat, or positive heat (relative to who's giving/receiving heat). Heat always goes from higher temperature to lower temperature.

Sun gives air some energy. It also gives the ground a lot of energy. The ground then transfers some energy to the air again. So the air and ground heat up.

I am pretty sure you don't grasp physics like.. at all.

are you paying any attention? of course that makes no sense. that's what i'm saying.
the air cannot magically heat up because of the ground, and yet almost completely ignore the heat given to it by the sun. pay attention, try to be consistent. why does the ground heat up the air more than the sun?
how many times do i need to make a point for it to be so much as acknowledged?!

There are 3 ways heat can be transdered: conduction, convection, and radiation.  Conduction is heat transferring directly from one thing to the other because they are touching, which is why your hand gets burnt when you put it on a hot stove top.  Convection is the mechanic where heat rises.  Radiation is transferring heat through light, which is what the Sun does.  The air is very transparent and so it can't collect much of the Sun's light, but then the ground collects the light and then the heat conducts into the air.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

The Truth Seeker

  • 615
  • listen and know no lies...
Re: do polar ice caps disprove ret?
« Reply #59 on: May 07, 2015, 03:51:47 PM »
take a sphere. shine a light on it, and i mean a big light. in ret the sun is a sphere, shining light out all directions. over half the surface of the sphere will be covered. it follows, under ret, that the majority of the earth's surface is covered in sunlight and so heat.
why have the poles frozen, in that case? for half the year, they are continually being heated by the sun, each. they should long since have melted. instead, we have two ice caps.

it seems far more likely that the sun we see in the sky is not what is responsible for the world's heat. if it were, the places that see it (such as the poles where it never sets for many months) should not be frozen solid.
CONCAVE EARTH IS TRUTH AND IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVEN IT YOUR A SHILL
"Perhaps when I am gone you will appreciate me more, and realize I was about truth, justice and possessing a steadfast determination to demolish the walls of deception and unbelief." Lord Steven Christopher