Remember me
▼ Content

In The Night


In The Night08-01-2018 00:09
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
I think that I should stop knocking you about. But I also think that you should not publicize such absurd things such as it not being possible to measure the mean global temperature or the temperatures of the oceans.

While the older methods of measuring mean global temperature isn't very adequate and averaging occurred over much larger areas than could be assumed to be a characteristic temperature, the satellite measurements are as adequate as necessary.

Let me give you an example: I have a speedometer on my bicycle that measures altitude gained or lost. It does so by measuring barometric pressure and this pressure lessons with gains in altitude.

However, barometric pressure is not a constant. With the normal changes in sea level barometric pressure, the starting altitude at the beginning of a ride can be anywhere from the normal 50 feet above sea level to perhaps -800 or +1100 feet.

If I go on a normal climbing ride I go over a couple of local hills and my speedometer accurately reports the number of feet climbed without any correction for the possible changes in atmospheric pressure that occurred during my ride. So on a day when another front moved in there can be as much as 200 or so feet lost or gained over the true 4,500 feet that I actually rode.

The fact is that the barometric pressure and hence my starting altitude have no effect on the reported climbing. And since there is a limit to the gained or lost barometric pressure, over a year the actual climb reported is within small fractions of a percent from being 100% correct.

This is the same with satellite temperature measurements.

Discounting the fact that the latest "cube" satellites will begin launching 'en mass' soon (thanks to the substantially reduced launch costs from commercial business involvement) and that they are theoretically a perfect black body in the lower-middle to lower infrared wavelengths (the entire spectrum radiated by the Earth) and hence can directly measure all of the energy exuded by the Earth in blocks as small as 1 square meter, the previous method is perfectly acceptable as well.

And this is by using reflective spectometry focused onto any level of the atmosphere that has interest. Among other things how would you expect that they know that the stratopause is warmer than the tropopause? The density of air at that point is so low that you can't measure anything with a thermometer.

Yes, thermal energy itself is NOT temperature, but shown upon a blackbody in the proper frequency range it converts entirely to mechanical heat. So when you are describing these sorts of interactions it is normal to refer to it has radiated heat and not energy. This is how you can say that all energy save gravity is heat.

Again, what if they have a 10% or even a 20% error? It doesn't matter in the least since we are using comparative statistical data and NOT exact temperatures. Is it getting warmer or is it getting cooler.

And over time it entirely evens out. And as you gain more precise methods of measuring the temperatures all you have to do is publish NEW data which is nothing more than the old data with the new accuracy corrections noted prominently on the data.

As for oceanic temperatures that's 1,000 times easier and cheaper. The top 20 meters of the ocean are well mixed and a measurement just two meters below the waves gives you a direct and immensely accurate reading. These surface temperature readings could be measured by ships or satellites with entirely adequate accuracy.

Below 20 meters they have a hundred different techniques that are again direct measurements of heat and because sea water is 784 times more dense than air on the average heat moves several thousands of times more rapidly than in the air. This means that if you measure the heat of one cubic meter it is almost entirely identical to a cubic kilometer. Again, the exact temperature doesn't matter.

There are volcanic vents along the mid-oceanic ridges that increase the temperatures around the vents but the oceans are some 1.332 billion cubic kilometers in volume, this added temperature is so little as to be imperceptible.

Arguing that we don't know the precise temperature of the ocean or the atmosphere is completely beside the point since it will ALL average out over time. The satellite temperature data has been taken for 38 years and in that time new satellites with more accurate measuring devices has replaced the older satellites while doing nothing more than proving the older methods work.

As for science being only "falsifiable facts" - More than 99% of science will never be in a clear enough picture to be "falsified". Most of science is crude hypothesis or unchecked theories and must be taken as fact unless it is specifically argued. That is what we've been doing with man-made climate change.

The average depth of the oceans is some 12,000 feet and for thousands of years the vast majority of the oceans were thought to be below freezing protected from freezing by the weight of the oceans above them and dead as a cubic mm of space beyond the outermost solar system because of the total lack of light. We have recently discovered that that part of the oceans is quite alive with bacteria feasting upon all of the dead and rotting things sinking from the surface layers. With every single cubic meter having different bacteria how would you falsify any statement telling you what the largest variety of bacteria species are?

Not all of the energy beamed upon the Earth leaves it. The same processes that formed petroleum and coal are at work today and the energy that is required to grow the plants and animals, that are part of that, stays right here on Earth. This is between 1 and 2% of the received sunlight.

While the same processes that construct petroleum are today at work it is in such small quantities and requires so much time to form that fossil fuel really could be used up were man of much greater power than he possess.

When oil wells were first drilled they were in places with surface evidence of petroleum. This was because land subsidence etc. had placed the petroleum under great pressure and you'd find things like the tar pits or surface oil pools. When you hit oil it would blow the entire oil drill right out of the tubes and throw it sometimes hundreds of yards. They hit a "gusher".

But this was not a common source of oil. This geology is rare. As geologists found that they could identify geologic structures that would point to the presence of oil, they would drill there. You could drill to the depth you expected to find oil and then pump to see if you could find any. If not you'd drill more. More often than not they were good enough to eventually strike oil. But hitting a dry well wasn't that uncommon.

When you found oil it was never in large enough quantities to pump. So what you do after you hit oil is drop a very large quantity of explosives down into the hole and blow it from as far away as possible. This could pulverize the rocks around the deep end of the well. This would also open up many more strata to drain oil into the explosive constructed cavern. All of that pulverized gravel would be pumped out. It normally appeared to be like sand and they would drain off the most petroleum as possible but you could see these large mounds of oil soaked sand and gravel around all of these wells.

And while in the process of arguing about average rainfalls you clearly were not converting the metric standards to the English standards.

We agree on many things and if you would cease your crackpot interpretations of the world around you, I will stop getting on your case.
08-01-2018 08:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
I think that I should stop knocking you about.

Probably a good idea. It would certainly be more productive the reducing yourself to just insulting people.
Wake wrote:
But I also think that you should not publicize such absurd things such as it not being possible to measure the mean global temperature or the temperatures of the oceans.

Sorry. The math don't change. You canna' change the laws of mathematics.
Wake wrote:
While the older methods of measuring mean global temperature isn't very adequate and averaging occurred over much larger areas than could be assumed to be a characteristic temperature, the satellite measurements are as adequate as necessary.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They only measure light.
Wake wrote:
Let me give you an example: I have a speedometer on my bicycle that measures altitude gained or lost. It does so by measuring barometric pressure and this pressure lessons with gains in altitude.

Okay...a cute feature.
Wake wrote:
However, barometric pressure is not a constant. With the normal changes in sea level barometric pressure, the starting altitude at the beginning of a ride can be anywhere from the normal 50 feet above sea level to perhaps -800 or +1100 feet.

True.
Wake wrote:
If I go on a normal climbing ride I go over a couple of local hills and my speedometer accurately reports the number of feet climbed without any correction for the possible changes in atmospheric pressure that occurred during my ride.

Unfortunately, such a barometer isn't particularly accurate. A better one would be a precision instrument such you find on aircraft.
Wake wrote:
So on a day when another front moved in there can be as much as 200 or so feet lost or gained over the true 4,500 feet that I actually rode.

It could be much greater than that. Aircraft use a local compensation factor when arriving at an airport or whenever they are traveling below 18000 feet. Above that, they use a standard assumption of 29.92 in mercury. For aircraft, this is what separates traffic when no radar service is available. They must be 2000 ft different in altitude from each other because of local pressure inaccuracies.
Wake wrote:
The fact is that the barometric pressure and hence my starting altitude have no effect on the reported climbing. And since there is a limit to the gained or lost barometric pressure, over a year the actual climb reported is within small fractions of a percent from being 100% correct.

This is wrong. Pressure changes all the time. In the time it takes you to ride your bike, pressure may have changed significantly.
Wake wrote:
This is the same with satellite temperature measurements.

False equivalence. It is not the same. Satellites cannot measure temperature at all. They only measure light. You don't know the Earth's emissivity. Neither can the emissivity be measured.
Wake wrote:
Discounting the fact that the latest "cube" satellites will begin launching 'en mass' soon (thanks to the substantially reduced launch costs from commercial business involvement) and that they are theoretically a perfect black body in the lower-middle to lower infrared wavelengths (the entire spectrum radiated by the Earth) and hence can directly measure all of the energy exuded by the Earth in blocks as small as 1 square meter, the previous method is perfectly acceptable as well.

Satellites can't measure temperature.
Wake wrote:
And this is by using reflective spectometry focused onto any level of the atmosphere that has interest. Among other things how would you expect that they know that the stratopause is warmer than the tropopause?

The know because they measure it with actual thermometers on a regular basis.
Wake wrote:
The density of air at that point is so low that you can't measure anything with a thermometer.

WRONG. You CAN measure the temperature of the stratosphere with a thermometer.
Wake wrote:
Yes, thermal energy itself is NOT temperature,

WRONG. Thermal energy is measured by temperature.
Wake wrote:
but shown upon a blackbody in the proper frequency range it converts entirely to mechanical heat.

Light is not mechanical energy. Heat has no frequency. There is no such thing as an ideal black body.
Wake wrote:
So when you are describing these sorts of interactions it is normal to refer to it has radiated heat and not energy.

Radiated heat is energy.
Wake wrote:
This is how you can say that all energy save gravity is heat.

WRONG. There are many forms of energy that have nothing to do with thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
Again, what if they have a 10% or even a 20% error?

You just toss is aside, right? Lame.
Wake wrote:
It doesn't matter in the least since we are using comparative statistical data

It DOES matter. Comparative data means nothing without a reference.
Wake wrote:
and NOT exact temperatures.

You need the absolute temperatures.
Wake wrote:
Is it getting warmer or is it getting cooler.

No way to know.
Wake wrote:
And over time it entirely evens out.

Using random numbers does not even out a measurement.
Wake wrote:
And as you gain more precise methods of measuring the temperatures

Thermometers are pretty precise. We have instruments now that can detect a difference as small as 0.01 deg F. You are confusing margin of error with tolerance.
Wake wrote:
all you have to do is publish NEW data which is nothing more than the old data with the new accuracy corrections noted prominently on the data.

There is no old data. There is no new data. There are no records of Earth's temperature. It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature. You STILL don't get the math.
Wake wrote:
As for oceanic temperatures that's 1,000 times easier and cheaper.

Nope. No difference.
Wake wrote:
The top 20 meters of the ocean are well mixed

No, they aren't.
Wake wrote:
and a measurement just two meters below the waves gives you a direct and immensely accurate reading.

Of nothing more then the immediate area around where you took the measurement. I'm surprise you claim to be a sailor, when you obviously don't know how to detect when you are in a current.
Wake wrote:
These surface temperature readings could be measured by ships or satellites with entirely adequate accuracy.

By ships, you can measure the area immediately around the ship. Satellites cannot measure temperature at all. They measure light.
Wake wrote:
Below 20 meters they have a hundred different techniques

Nope. Same techniques. You just send the thermometer lower on a line.
Wake wrote:
that are again direct measurements of heat

Thermal energy is not heat. Thermometers do not measure heat.
Wake wrote:
and because sea water is 784 times more dense than air on the average heat moves several thousands of times more rapidly than in the air.

You have it backwards. In addition, you are ignoring the thermal conductivity of various materials.
Wake wrote:
This means that if you measure the heat of one cubic meter it is almost entirely identical to a cubic kilometer.

Nope. Go look up the thermal conductivity of various materials. These are well known and have been measured under controlled conditions.
Wake wrote:
Again, the exact temperature doesn't matter.

Yes it does.
Wake wrote:
There are volcanic vents along the mid-oceanic ridges that increase the temperatures around the vents but the oceans are some 1.332 billion cubic kilometers in volume, this added temperature is so little as to be imperceptible.

Irrelevant.
Wake wrote:
Arguing that we don't know the precise temperature of the ocean or the atmosphere is completely beside the point since it will ALL average out over time.

You can't average random numbers and expect to get an accurate anything.
Wake wrote:
The satellite temperature data has been taken for 38 years and in that time new satellites with more accurate measuring devices has replaced the older satellites while doing nothing more than proving the older methods work.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
As for science being only "falsifiable facts"

It isn't. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature, not facts.
Wake wrote:
- More than 99% of science will never be in a clear enough picture to be "falsified".

WRONG. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable or it is not a theory of science...period. If a theory is falsified, it is no longer a theory of science...period.
Wake wrote:
Most of science is crude hypothesis or unchecked theories

WRONG. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.
Wake wrote:
and must be taken as fact

No theory is a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is.
Wake wrote:
unless it is specifically argued.

Makes no difference.
Wake wrote:
That is what we've been doing with man-made climate change.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions. Science has no theories based on a void argument.
Wake wrote:
The average depth of the oceans is some 12,000 feet and for thousands of years the vast majority of the oceans were thought to be below freezing protected from freezing by the weight of the oceans above them and dead as a cubic mm of space beyond the outermost solar system because of the total lack of light. We have recently discovered that that part of the oceans is quite alive with bacteria feasting upon all of the dead and rotting things sinking from the surface layers. With every single cubic meter having different bacteria how would you falsify any statement telling you what the largest variety of bacteria species are?

There is no theory of science concerning the size of different bacteria in the ocean.
Wake wrote:
Not all of the energy beamed upon the Earth leaves it.

All the energy Earth receives from the Sun leaves it, assuming the Sun with a steady state output. To say otherwise violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Wake wrote:
The same processes that formed petroleum and coal are at work today and the energy that is required to grow the plants and animals, that are part of that,

No one knows the origin of coal. Petroleum formation does not require the sun. It is powered by the internal heat of the Earth, which comes from nuclear fission.
Wake wrote:
stays right here on Earth.

No, the energy in plants growing does NOT stay on Earth. Other plants die. You are forgetting them.
Wake wrote:
This is between 1 and 2% of the received sunlight.

Argument from randU. No one knows how much sunlight energy is stored in Earth's vegetation.
Wake wrote:
While the same processes that construct petroleum are today at work it is in such small quantities and requires so much time to form

We and do synthesize the stuff in a matter hours. The Earth does the same.
Wake wrote:
that fossil fuel

Fossils don't burn.
Wake wrote:
really could be used up were man of much greater power than he possess.

Is THAT why we are finding more and more oil everywhere, eh?
Wake wrote:
When oil wells were first drilled they were in places with surface evidence of petroleum.

They were certainly easy to find that way.
Wake wrote:
This was because land subsidence etc. had placed the petroleum under great pressure and you'd find things like the tar pits or surface oil pools.

Surface oil does not require pressure to form.
Wake wrote:
When you hit oil it would blow the entire oil drill right out of the tubes and throw it sometimes hundreds of yards. They hit a "gusher".

Gushers occurred because the oil contained natural gas or possibly even water under pressure. Drilling at the site of surface oil deposits did not always result in gushers.
Wake wrote:
But this was not a common source of oil. This geology is rare. As geologists found that they could identify geologic structures that would point to the presence of oil, they would drill there. You could drill to the depth you expected to find oil and then pump to see if you could find any. If not you'd drill more. More often than not they were good enough to eventually strike oil. But hitting a dry well wasn't that uncommon.

If you drill deep enough anywhere on Earth, you WILL find oil. The problem is the cost per foot to drill. Dry wells occurred not because there was no oil, but because the driller ran out of money (or patience), or went to the limit of his drilling equipment.
Wake wrote:
When you found oil it was never in large enough quantities to pump.

There are many wells found where there is large enough quantities to pump.
Wake wrote:
So what you do after you hit oil is drop a very large quantity of explosives down into the hole and blow it from as far away as possible. This could pulverize the rocks around the deep end of the well. This would also open up many more strata to drain oil into the explosive constructed cavern. All of that pulverized gravel would be pumped out. It normally appeared to be like sand and they would drain off the most petroleum as possible but you could see these large mounds of oil soaked sand and gravel around all of these wells.

This sometimes improved yield, true.
Wake wrote:
And while in the process of arguing about average rainfalls you clearly were not converting the metric standards to the English standards.

I was not using metric. The English standards use metric. Are you confusing England with the United States?
Wake wrote:
We agree on many things

I would say a few things. We agree the particular form of the Church of Global Warming that people are using to predict doom and gloom is garbage. We do not agree on your version of the Church of Global Warming. I deny all aspects of the Church of Global Warming. NONE of it is true.
Wake wrote:
and if you would cease your crackpot interpretations of the world around you, I will stop getting on your case.

Mathematics is not crackpot. Guess you'll still get on my case, because you have no alternative you have given yourself, since you will not learn the mathematics necessary to understand.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 16:55
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
hollowman strikes again.
08-01-2018 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
As I expected, you couldn't accept that I am not going to compromise to you by denying science or math. You've decided to go back to your useless insults.
08-01-2018 21:25
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Since you haven't any science of math you can't support anything you say.
08-01-2018 21:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Since you haven't any science of math you can't support anything you say.


There is no such thing as 'science of math'.

Mathematics is a closed system. It's boundaries are set by the axioms that define that system. All of mathematics, including statistical mathematics are the results of extending those axioms through formal proofs (and the case of random number math, which probability math depends upon, and which statistics depend upon, the importation from another Domain of mathematics that uses different but largely similar axioms.

Science is an open system. There is no limit to the range of what theory may be inspired. The only requirement is that a theory MUST be falsifiable, and the test for the null hypothesis MUST be available (and at least one of them conducted).


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 23:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Since you haven't any science of math you can't support anything you say.


There is no such thing as 'science of math'.

Mathematics is a closed system. It's boundaries are set by the axioms that define that system. All of mathematics, including statistical mathematics are the results of extending those axioms through formal proofs (and the case of random number math, which probability math depends upon, and which statistics depend upon, the importation from another Domain of mathematics that uses different but largely similar axioms.

Science is an open system. There is no limit to the range of what theory may be inspired. The only requirement is that a theory MUST be falsifiable, and the test for the null hypothesis MUST be available (and at least one of them conducted).


Now the hollowman is back to the place where either he can't recognize a typo or he is attempting to act intelligent by saying his usual inaccurate crap about math.

Again from the top: What is the difference in your mindlessness between "statistical math" and math?
08-01-2018 23:23
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
I think that I should stop knocking you about. But I also think that you should not publicize such absurd things such as it not being possible to measure the mean global temperature or the temperatures of the oceans.


@All,
A good example of the tail wagging the dog

And for fun, scientists haven't shown where they've verified the measurements from satellites with ground based thermometers. I'm hoping they have but I haven't heard any scientist mention that they have.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC092iC03p02859/abstract
Edited on 08-01-2018 23:28
08-01-2018 23:57
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
UPDATE:

James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
I think that I should stop knocking you about. But I also think that you should not publicize such absurd things such as it not being possible to measure the mean global temperature or the temperatures of the oceans.


@All,
A good example of the tail wagging the dog

And for fun, scientists haven't shown where they've verified the measurements from satellites with ground based thermometers. I'm hoping they have but I haven't heard any scientist mention that they have.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC092iC03p02859/abstract


This is a comparison of shipboard instruments of the same type used on a satellite. You wouldn't expect these instruments to have matching readings because the satellite scanners cover a wider surface area per scan than the close-up ship sounders. Furthermore the shipboard scanners have to deal with roll and pitch. Another problem is that close range plankton makes the scanner react different because of the comparative size of the plankton compared to the scan.

BUT one really big deal is that the ship scanners can be checked with actual water temperature readings from the several sources of thermometers on shipboard.

I think that having a test like this that shows that they only have a 1 degree C readings from ship and satellite is extremely positive results. As I pointed out to hollowman, the precise temperature readings aren't critical - the temperature CHANGES are.

I assume that you only read the abstract and didn't buy the actual PDF?

If you did buy the article you'd have discovered that it was published in 1987.

There are much newer papers showing that the combined accuracy is about 0.2 degrees C with zero offset.

http://images.remss.com/papers/rsspubs/Gentemann_tgrs_2010.pdf
Edited on 09-01-2018 00:21
09-01-2018 00:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Since you haven't any science of math you can't support anything you say.


There is no such thing as 'science of math'.

Mathematics is a closed system. It's boundaries are set by the axioms that define that system. All of mathematics, including statistical mathematics are the results of extending those axioms through formal proofs (and the case of random number math, which probability math depends upon, and which statistics depend upon, the importation from another Domain of mathematics that uses different but largely similar axioms.

Science is an open system. There is no limit to the range of what theory may be inspired. The only requirement is that a theory MUST be falsifiable, and the test for the null hypothesis MUST be available (and at least one of them conducted).


Now the hollowman is back to the place where either he can't recognize a typo

climate-debate.com has an excellent editor to fix typos. I don't believe you that it was a typo. You were trying to make a buzzword and got caught at it.
Wake wrote:
or he is attempting to act intelligent by saying his usual inaccurate crap about math.

Since you don't know a lot of mathematics or even where it comes from, you don't have a lot of weight in that statement.
Wake wrote:
Again from the top: What is the difference in your mindlessness between "statistical math" and math?

One is a subset of the other. Done.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2018 00:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
I think that I should stop knocking you about. But I also think that you should not publicize such absurd things such as it not being possible to measure the mean global temperature or the temperatures of the oceans.


@All,
A good example of the tail wagging the dog

And for fun, scientists haven't shown where they've verified the measurements from satellites with ground based thermometers. I'm hoping they have but I haven't heard any scientist mention that they have.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC092iC03p02859/abstract


it really wouldn't work. This comparison only verifies the temperature at the location of the ship.
Emissivity can change dramatically in the space of fractions of an inch. Calculating the total emissivity of Earth is really quite beyond any instrumentation we have. Wake doesn't realize that to calculate emissivity you first have to accurately know the temperature of the surface you are measuring, then compare that to an ideal reference.

So he is claiming that a satellite, using an unknown emissivity, can accuractely measure the temperature of the Earth, which in turn would give a calculation for emissivity. Doesn't get much more circular than that!

The equation in question is: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4
The SBconstant is a constant of nature. Emissivity is a constant (between 0 and 100% or the inverse of the albedo) of the surface being measured. This is a measured value.

radiance is in watts/square meter, and temperature is in Kelvins. All light radiated is considered regardless of color, just as all emissivity is considered, regardless of color.

This equation can be derived by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.

Since no instrument can measure ALL frequencies of light (there are an infinite number of them!), we use as wideband an instrument as is practically possible.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-01-2018 00:33
09-01-2018 00:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
UPDATE:

James_ wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
I think that I should stop knocking you about. But I also think that you should not publicize such absurd things such as it not being possible to measure the mean global temperature or the temperatures of the oceans.


@All,
A good example of the tail wagging the dog

And for fun, scientists haven't shown where they've verified the measurements from satellites with ground based thermometers. I'm hoping they have but I haven't heard any scientist mention that they have.

This is a comparison of shipboard instruments of the same type used on a satellite. You wouldn't expect these instruments to have matching readings because the satellite scanners cover a wider surface area per scan than the close-up ship sounders.

This is true.
Wake wrote:
Furthermore the shipboard scanners have to deal with roll and pitch.

Roll and pitch make no difference, other than getting everyone seasick.
Wake wrote:
Another problem is that close range plankton makes the scanner react different because of the comparative size of the plankton compared to the scan.

Plankton is no uniformly scattered in the sea.
Wake wrote:
BUT one really big deal is that the ship scanners can be checked with actual water temperature readings from the several sources of thermometers on shipboard.

Which only give you the temperature of the water at the location of the ship.
Wake wrote:
I think that having a test like this that shows that they only have a 1 degree C readings from ship and satellite is extremely positive results.

But emissivity changes faster than that per mile.
Wake wrote:
As I pointed out to hollowman, the precise temperature readings aren't critical - the temperature CHANGES are.

You don't know what the changes are. Emissivity change dramatically in the space of fractions of an inch.
Wake wrote:
I assume that you only read the abstract and didn't buy the actual PDF?

If you did buy the article you'd have discovered that it was published in 1987.

There are much newer papers showing that the combined accuracy is about 0.2 degrees C with zero offset.

...deleted Holy Link...

Whoopie. Makes no difference.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2018 01:24
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
"Ahhhkkk, It's all wrong. It's all wrong. Ahhkk, I'm right I'm right."




Join the debate In The Night:

Remember me

▲ 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 © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact