Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change denial



Page 2 of 2<12
04-12-2017 21:15
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Name Symbol Number Exp CGS Units Relative Error
(ppm)
Boltzmann constant k 1.380658(12) -16 erg k-1 8.5

Do you understand what the term "relative error" means?


Do you understand what 'precision' of a measured constant means?

The S-B equation is not probability math.


Do you understand that relative error is a measure of the uncertainty of measurement compared to the size of the measurement.

Do you understand that uncertainty means that the constant is NOT certain? This is not math, it is physics.
04-12-2017 23:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Name Symbol Number Exp CGS Units Relative Error
(ppm)
Boltzmann constant k 1.380658(12) -16 erg k-1 8.5

Do you understand what the term "relative error" means?


Do you understand what 'precision' of a measured constant means?

The S-B equation is not probability math.


Do you understand that relative error is a measure of the uncertainty of measurement compared to the size of the measurement.

Do you understand that uncertainty means that the constant is NOT certain? This is not math, it is physics.

Apparently you don't.

The constant is certain, but only to a certain level of precision. That is not probability. That is instrument tolerance. That is why we use a fixed value in the equation. It does not change. It is always the same value. It is a constant. It's purpose is to convert the equation to our units of measurement. Of course, you never did understand probability math either. That's why you don't understand statistical math.

The S-B equation is not a probability equation. It is not a statistical one either. It is accurate. It applies to all bodies.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-12-2017 23:31
05-12-2017 00:39
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Name Symbol Number Exp CGS Units Relative Error
(ppm)
Boltzmann constant k 1.380658(12) -16 erg k-1 8.5

Do you understand what the term "relative error" means?


Do you understand what 'precision' of a measured constant means?

The S-B equation is not probability math.


Do you understand that relative error is a measure of the uncertainty of measurement compared to the size of the measurement.

Do you understand that uncertainty means that the constant is NOT certain? This is not math, it is physics.

Apparently you don't.

The constant is certain, but only to a certain level of precision.


I really love this - you don't know what a calorimeter is, you say you can measure energy going into the Earth but not leaving. And now you tell us that a constant with only a certain level of precision is accurate.
Edited on 05-12-2017 00:45
05-12-2017 01:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Name Symbol Number Exp CGS Units Relative Error
(ppm)
Boltzmann constant k 1.380658(12) -16 erg k-1 8.5

Do you understand what the term "relative error" means?


Do you understand what 'precision' of a measured constant means?

The S-B equation is not probability math.


Do you understand that relative error is a measure of the uncertainty of measurement compared to the size of the measurement.

Do you understand that uncertainty means that the constant is NOT certain? This is not math, it is physics.

Apparently you don't.

The constant is certain, but only to a certain level of precision.


I really love this - you don't know what a calorimeter is, you say you can measure energy going into the Earth but not leaving. And now you tell us that a constant with only a certain level of precision is accurate.


The amount of energy leaving the Earth is the same as the energy entering it, assuming the energy from the Sun remains constant (which it generally does).

You can measure the energy from the Sun using a calorimeter. I have already told you what they do multiple times. You just deny it like everything else. It is obvious you never built one like all students of physics and chemistry eventually do.

The constant is fixed. The S-B equation is accurate. The constant we used is the accepted constant. The result is off by exactly the same amount as the precision of the constant. It is always the same result. It is not a probability.

You never did understand probability math. That's why you don't understand statistical math.
Apparently you don't understand what a 'constant' is either.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2017 11:59
Tim the plumber
★★★☆☆
(981)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Name Symbol Number Exp CGS Units Relative Error
(ppm)
Boltzmann constant k 1.380658(12) -16 erg k-1 8.5

Do you understand what the term "relative error" means?


Do you understand what 'precision' of a measured constant means?

The S-B equation is not probability math.


Do you understand that relative error is a measure of the uncertainty of measurement compared to the size of the measurement.

Do you understand that uncertainty means that the constant is NOT certain? This is not math, it is physics.

Apparently you don't.

The constant is certain, but only to a certain level of precision.


I really love this - you don't know what a calorimeter is, you say you can measure energy going into the Earth but not leaving. And now you tell us that a constant with only a certain level of precision is accurate.


The amount of energy leaving the Earth is the same as the energy entering it, assuming the energy from the Sun remains constant (which it generally does).


If it is not then the earth is warming or cooling.

If you have a pint of water in a kettle and heat it via the electric heating element then the amount of heat leaving the kettle is less tha that entering it. This situation continues untill it starts to boil whne the amount of heat energy leaving in the form of steam will be equal to the input as the temperature will remain constant.

If the power is switched off then the amount of heat energy leaving will be higher than that going into the kettle.
05-12-2017 16:10
Wake
★★★★★
(2772)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Name Symbol Number Exp CGS Units Relative Error
(ppm)
Boltzmann constant k 1.380658(12) -16 erg k-1 8.5

Do you understand what the term "relative error" means?


Do you understand what 'precision' of a measured constant means?

The S-B equation is not probability math.


Do you understand that relative error is a measure of the uncertainty of measurement compared to the size of the measurement.

Do you understand that uncertainty means that the constant is NOT certain? This is not math, it is physics.

Apparently you don't.

The constant is certain, but only to a certain level of precision.


I really love this - you don't know what a calorimeter is, you say you can measure energy going into the Earth but not leaving. And now you tell us that a constant with only a certain level of precision is accurate.


The amount of energy leaving the Earth is the same as the energy entering it, assuming the energy from the Sun remains constant (which it generally does).


If it is not then the earth is warming or cooling.

If you have a pint of water in a kettle and heat it via the electric heating element then the amount of heat leaving the kettle is less tha that entering it. This situation continues untill it starts to boil whne the amount of heat energy leaving in the form of steam will be equal to the input as the temperature will remain constant.

If the power is switched off then the amount of heat energy leaving will be higher than that going into the kettle.


Better watch out or he'll prove you wrong with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. And then he'll accuse you of being a member of the Church of Global Warming.

He doesn't have a grasp of the difference between thermal energy and temperature. His description of a calorimeter was bass ackwards because of that. And a calorimeter is not the tool for such a job. He doesn't grasp the fact that the Earth's temperature by the time it reaches the tropopause is very well mixed and so the temperature is easily monitored via the Stefan-Boltzmann law he uses so often as a club. He doesn't identify heat with wavelength or "color" if you like. He likes to think that there are large temperature differences in the upper atmosphere at the same altitude. He also doesn't know that there are almost perfectly charted temperatures at the middle stratosphere and above.

Your picture of a tea kettle is good. It shows the delay of heating due to water's absorption of energy. Your cup of tea then doesn't radiate heat but rather conducts it into the surrounding atmosphere.

There is also lost energy in the Earth as something like 0.07% of it disappears into plant growth. This despite the fact that the Earth is still cooling and as it cools it shrinks. Of course these things occur at geological time periods but nevertheless are occurring.
05-12-2017 19:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Name Symbol Number Exp CGS Units Relative Error
(ppm)
Boltzmann constant k 1.380658(12) -16 erg k-1 8.5

Do you understand what the term "relative error" means?


Do you understand what 'precision' of a measured constant means?

The S-B equation is not probability math.


Do you understand that relative error is a measure of the uncertainty of measurement compared to the size of the measurement.

Do you understand that uncertainty means that the constant is NOT certain? This is not math, it is physics.

Apparently you don't.

The constant is certain, but only to a certain level of precision.


I really love this - you don't know what a calorimeter is, you say you can measure energy going into the Earth but not leaving. And now you tell us that a constant with only a certain level of precision is accurate.


The amount of energy leaving the Earth is the same as the energy entering it, assuming the energy from the Sun remains constant (which it generally does).


If it is not then the earth is warming or cooling.

If you have a pint of water in a kettle and heat it via the electric heating element then the amount of heat leaving the kettle is less tha that entering it. This situation continues untill it starts to boil whne the amount of heat energy leaving in the form of steam will be equal to the input as the temperature will remain constant.

If the power is switched off then the amount of heat energy leaving will be higher than that going into the kettle.

This is all quite correct. The temperature of the Earth will change depending on how the output from the Sun changes.


The Parrot Killer
05-12-2017 19:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4531)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:

Name Symbol Number Exp CGS Units Relative Error
(ppm)
Boltzmann constant k 1.380658(12) -16 erg k-1 8.5

Do you understand what the term "relative error" means?


Do you understand what 'precision' of a measured constant means?

The S-B equation is not probability math.


Do you understand that relative error is a measure of the uncertainty of measurement compared to the size of the measurement.

Do you understand that uncertainty means that the constant is NOT certain? This is not math, it is physics.

Apparently you don't.

The constant is certain, but only to a certain level of precision.


I really love this - you don't know what a calorimeter is, you say you can measure energy going into the Earth but not leaving. And now you tell us that a constant with only a certain level of precision is accurate.


The amount of energy leaving the Earth is the same as the energy entering it, assuming the energy from the Sun remains constant (which it generally does).


If it is not then the earth is warming or cooling.

If you have a pint of water in a kettle and heat it via the electric heating element then the amount of heat leaving the kettle is less tha that entering it. This situation continues untill it starts to boil whne the amount of heat energy leaving in the form of steam will be equal to the input as the temperature will remain constant.

If the power is switched off then the amount of heat energy leaving will be higher than that going into the kettle.


Better watch out or he'll prove you wrong with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. And then he'll accuse you of being a member of the Church of Global Warming.

Why would I?
Wake wrote:
He doesn't have a grasp of the difference between thermal energy and temperature.

He does...you don't.
Wake wrote:
His description of a calorimeter was bass ackwards because of that. And a calorimeter is not the tool for such a job.

You just failed to recognize one when it was put right in front of your face.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't grasp the fact that the Earth's temperature by the time it reaches the tropopause is very well mixed

No, it is not.
Wake wrote:
and so the temperature is easily monitored

No, it is not. Jet aircraft (which do most of the monitoring) are nowhere numerous enough to measure the entire tropopause.
Wake wrote:
via the Stefan-Boltzmann law he uses so often as a club.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be used to measure temperature. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't identify heat with wavelength or "color" if you like.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. Frequency is not part of the equation. It has specifically been removed from Planck's laws as the equation is derived from it. It only describes total energy radiated on all wavelengths combined. Emissivity is similarly color-blind for the same reason. Wien's law does look at color, but it is only really useful for comparison of glowing objects, not reflective bodies such as Earth.
Wake wrote:
He likes to think that there are large temperature differences in the upper atmosphere at the same altitude.

There are. The major factor of variance is latitude and season. There is also a daily variation.
Wake wrote:
He also doesn't know that there are almost perfectly charted temperatures at the middle stratosphere and above.

No, there are not.
Wake wrote:
Your picture of a tea kettle is good. It shows the delay of heating due to water's absorption of energy. Your cup of tea then doesn't radiate heat but rather conducts it into the surrounding atmosphere.

Wups. Missed that one!
Wake wrote:
There is also lost energy in the Earth as something like 0.07% of it disappears into plant growth.

Energy never 'disappears'. You cannot create or destroy energy. The energy going into plant growth is still energy in the form of potential energy, which has no temperature.
Wake wrote:
This despite the fact that the Earth is still cooling and as it cools it shrinks.

Non-sequitur. You ARE reaching, aren't you?
Wake wrote:
Of course these things occur at geological time periods but nevertheless are occurring.

Big hairy deal.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Climate change denial:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
How Fossil Fuel Money Made Climate Change Denial the Word of God1420-11-2017 21:54
Climate change denial: a history019-11-2017 18:36
Michael Mann The Madhouse Effect: Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump016-11-2017 18:59
Surrendering to fear brought us climate change denial and President Trump1529-07-2017 23:16
Climate change denial828-11-2016 21:29
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact