Remember me
▼ Content

Real Temperature Measurement of Earth


Real Temperature Measurement of Earth09-12-2017 19:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Cube satellite facilities are about to be opened. These cube satellites which will carry a dead black silicon growth that can absorb all of the energy in the lower IR range which is radiated from the Earth so that perfectly reliable measurements of Earths total heat energy radiation are to be shortly launched in quantity.

These satellites are in low Earth orbit and hence their orbits will decay rapidly and need replacement at a regular schedule.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/rocket-lab-poised-provide-dedicated-launcher-cubesat-science?utm_campaign=news_weekly_2017-12-08&et_rid=79437105&et_cid=1714025

Of course this is a "holy link" to nightmare who doesn't believe that temperature can be measured at a distance.
09-12-2017 23:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Cube satellite facilities are about to be opened. These cube satellites which will carry a dead black silicon growth that can absorb all of the energy in the lower IR range which is radiated from the Earth so that perfectly reliable measurements of Earths total heat energy radiation are to be shortly launched in quantity.

These satellites are in low Earth orbit and hence their orbits will decay rapidly and need replacement at a regular schedule.

...deleted Holy Link...

Of course this is a "holy link" to nightmare who doesn't believe that temperature can be measured at a distance.


Temperature CAN be measured at a distance, but only if you know the emissivity of the surface you are measuring, since you are actually just measuring light.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature (other than themselves). They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Go look up the Stefan-Boltzmann law you are trying to ignore again.

These satellites aren't even designed to measure Earth's temperature (as if you could build one). They are not even a new type of satellite. Go read the article you are quoting again.


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2017 18:54
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Cube satellite facilities are about to be opened. These cube satellites which will carry a dead black silicon growth that can absorb all of the energy in the lower IR range which is radiated from the Earth so that perfectly reliable measurements of Earths total heat energy radiation are to be shortly launched in quantity.

These satellites are in low Earth orbit and hence their orbits will decay rapidly and need replacement at a regular schedule.

...deleted Holy Link...

Of course this is a "holy link" to nightmare who doesn't believe that temperature can be measured at a distance.


Temperature CAN be measured at a distance, but only if you know the emissivity of the surface you are measuring, since you are actually just measuring light.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature (other than themselves). They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Go look up the Stefan-Boltzmann law you are trying to ignore again.

These satellites aren't even designed to measure Earth's temperature (as if you could build one). They are not even a new type of satellite. Go read the article you are quoting again.


Let me repeat - BECAUSE the energy applied to the Earth is almost exactly the same as the energy leaving the Earth it is essentially a black body and doesn't require ANY correction for emissivity. And it wouldn't matter if it did since temperature is equal to the wavelength of the light.
10-12-2017 22:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Cube satellite facilities are about to be opened. These cube satellites which will carry a dead black silicon growth that can absorb all of the energy in the lower IR range which is radiated from the Earth so that perfectly reliable measurements of Earths total heat energy radiation are to be shortly launched in quantity.

These satellites are in low Earth orbit and hence their orbits will decay rapidly and need replacement at a regular schedule.

...deleted Holy Link...

Of course this is a "holy link" to nightmare who doesn't believe that temperature can be measured at a distance.


Temperature CAN be measured at a distance, but only if you know the emissivity of the surface you are measuring, since you are actually just measuring light.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature (other than themselves). They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Go look up the Stefan-Boltzmann law you are trying to ignore again.

These satellites aren't even designed to measure Earth's temperature (as if you could build one). They are not even a new type of satellite. Go read the article you are quoting again.


Let me repeat - BECAUSE the energy applied to the Earth is almost exactly the same as the energy leaving the Earth it is essentially a black body and doesn't require ANY correction for emissivity. And it wouldn't matter if it did since temperature is equal to the wavelength of the light.


WRONG.

All the energy applied to Earth is EXACTLY the same as the energy leaving the Earth (unless the output of the Sun changes).

Energy is NOT temperature. It is energy in the form of electromagnetic energy.

Not all of it is absorbed by the Earth. A fair bit is just reflected back again. That is not temperature.

ONLY the light that is absorbed is converted to thermal energy (measurable as a temperature).

A single temperature does not emit a single wavelength of light. It emits a band of light. Wien's law can be used to find the peak of that band, IF you know the temperature. Temperature is not a wavelength. You cannot use Wien's law to find a temperature from a frequency of light emitted. The best you can do with Wien's law is to build a comparison of an energy source (like a star) and compare it against another energy source. It doesn't work for reflective bodies like the Earth because reflected light is included in what you see (that has nothing to do with temperature).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It is specifically constructed to include all frequencies of light. So does the emissivity constant it uses.

The Earth is not a single temperature. It is many temperatures across the surface of the Earth. They are constantly changing.

You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. It varies widely in the space of fractions of an inch.

Emissivity is also absorptivity. They are always the same value. Albedo is the inverse of emissivity.

You don't know how much is radiated due to temperature vs radiated due to reflections and other ambient light. This is true even at night.

Light is NOT temperature. What you measure with a satellite is ALL light, not just what is emitted by the Earth, even if you concentrate on the far infrared. You cannot determine the absolute temperature of anything on Earth with a satellite. You need an actual thermometer in contact with the material of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2017 00:55
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Cube satellite facilities are about to be opened. These cube satellites which will carry a dead black silicon growth that can absorb all of the energy in the lower IR range which is radiated from the Earth so that perfectly reliable measurements of Earths total heat energy radiation are to be shortly launched in quantity.

These satellites are in low Earth orbit and hence their orbits will decay rapidly and need replacement at a regular schedule.

...deleted Holy Link...

Of course this is a "holy link" to nightmare who doesn't believe that temperature can be measured at a distance.


Temperature CAN be measured at a distance, but only if you know the emissivity of the surface you are measuring, since you are actually just measuring light.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature (other than themselves). They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Go look up the Stefan-Boltzmann law you are trying to ignore again.

These satellites aren't even designed to measure Earth's temperature (as if you could build one). They are not even a new type of satellite. Go read the article you are quoting again.


Let me repeat - BECAUSE the energy applied to the Earth is almost exactly the same as the energy leaving the Earth it is essentially a black body and doesn't require ANY correction for emissivity. And it wouldn't matter if it did since temperature is equal to the wavelength of the light.


WRONG.

All the energy applied to Earth is EXACTLY the same as the energy leaving the Earth (unless the output of the Sun changes).

Energy is NOT temperature. It is energy in the form of electromagnetic energy.

Not all of it is absorbed by the Earth. A fair bit is just reflected back again. That is not temperature.

ONLY the light that is absorbed is converted to thermal energy (measurable as a temperature).

A single temperature does not emit a single wavelength of light. It emits a band of light. Wien's law can be used to find the peak of that band, IF you know the temperature. Temperature is not a wavelength. You cannot use Wien's law to find a temperature from a frequency of light emitted. The best you can do with Wien's law is to build a comparison of an energy source (like a star) and compare it against another energy source. It doesn't work for reflective bodies like the Earth because reflected light is included in what you see (that has nothing to do with temperature).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It is specifically constructed to include all frequencies of light. So does the emissivity constant it uses.

The Earth is not a single temperature. It is many temperatures across the surface of the Earth. They are constantly changing.

You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. It varies widely in the space of fractions of an inch.

Emissivity is also absorptivity. They are always the same value. Albedo is the inverse of emissivity.

You don't know how much is radiated due to temperature vs radiated due to reflections and other ambient light. This is true even at night.

Light is NOT temperature. What you measure with a satellite is ALL light, not just what is emitted by the Earth, even if you concentrate on the far infrared. You cannot determine the absolute temperature of anything on Earth with a satellite. You need an actual thermometer in contact with the material of the Earth.


There you go with your science again. Save for gravity almost all of the energy in the universe is thermal.

If the same energy is emitted as absorbed the emissivity is 1.

Every time you start writing you show that you don't understand basic physics.
11-12-2017 18:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Cube satellite facilities are about to be opened. These cube satellites which will carry a dead black silicon growth that can absorb all of the energy in the lower IR range which is radiated from the Earth so that perfectly reliable measurements of Earths total heat energy radiation are to be shortly launched in quantity.

These satellites are in low Earth orbit and hence their orbits will decay rapidly and need replacement at a regular schedule.

...deleted Holy Link...

Of course this is a "holy link" to nightmare who doesn't believe that temperature can be measured at a distance.


Temperature CAN be measured at a distance, but only if you know the emissivity of the surface you are measuring, since you are actually just measuring light.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature (other than themselves). They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Go look up the Stefan-Boltzmann law you are trying to ignore again.

These satellites aren't even designed to measure Earth's temperature (as if you could build one). They are not even a new type of satellite. Go read the article you are quoting again.


Let me repeat - BECAUSE the energy applied to the Earth is almost exactly the same as the energy leaving the Earth it is essentially a black body and doesn't require ANY correction for emissivity. And it wouldn't matter if it did since temperature is equal to the wavelength of the light.


WRONG.

All the energy applied to Earth is EXACTLY the same as the energy leaving the Earth (unless the output of the Sun changes).

Energy is NOT temperature. It is energy in the form of electromagnetic energy.

Not all of it is absorbed by the Earth. A fair bit is just reflected back again. That is not temperature.

ONLY the light that is absorbed is converted to thermal energy (measurable as a temperature).

A single temperature does not emit a single wavelength of light. It emits a band of light. Wien's law can be used to find the peak of that band, IF you know the temperature. Temperature is not a wavelength. You cannot use Wien's law to find a temperature from a frequency of light emitted. The best you can do with Wien's law is to build a comparison of an energy source (like a star) and compare it against another energy source. It doesn't work for reflective bodies like the Earth because reflected light is included in what you see (that has nothing to do with temperature).

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is color-blind. It is specifically constructed to include all frequencies of light. So does the emissivity constant it uses.

The Earth is not a single temperature. It is many temperatures across the surface of the Earth. They are constantly changing.

You don't know the emissivity of the Earth. It varies widely in the space of fractions of an inch.

Emissivity is also absorptivity. They are always the same value. Albedo is the inverse of emissivity.

You don't know how much is radiated due to temperature vs radiated due to reflections and other ambient light. This is true even at night.

Light is NOT temperature. What you measure with a satellite is ALL light, not just what is emitted by the Earth, even if you concentrate on the far infrared. You cannot determine the absolute temperature of anything on Earth with a satellite. You need an actual thermometer in contact with the material of the Earth.


There you go with your science again. Save for gravity almost all of the energy in the universe is thermal.

So that stuff coming from the Sun and the stars isn't light, eh? So I guess fusion is thermal energy, eh? What a moron.
Wake wrote:
If the same energy is emitted as absorbed the emissivity is 1.

Okay. Let's imagine a perfectly reflective object in space about the same distance from our Sun.

Since it reflects 100% of the Sun's energy, the object will appear as bright as our Sun, the same color, everything. According to a satellite monitoring it, it will appear as hot as our Sun at that distance, but because it absorbed no energy, it will be as cold as space. The energy in is the same as the energy out.

Now let's imagine a perfectly absorptive object. All the energy of the Sun is converted into thermal energy. The object will get really hot. It will eventually reach a certain temperature and stay there. Because of this, the object will be emitting (through Planck) emission an equal amount of light. Again, the energy in is the same as the energy out. Again, a satellite will see an object as hot as our Sun at that distance.

One object is hot, the other is cold. The Earth is somewhere in the middle, we don't know where.

Wake wrote:
Every time you start writing you show that you don't understand basic physics.


It is obvious you are having trouble with the concept of emissivity vs reflectivity. Your magick satellite sees both. The Earth appears as hot as our Sun at that distance. In other words, the Earth's temperature is a result of our distance from our Sun and the emissivity of the surface, which is unknown. If the emissivity doesn't change (no reason why it should, particularly), the Earth's temperature is simply what it absorbs from our Sun and releases again as Planck radiance, as opposed to simply reflecting the light. But the satellite sees both.

The Sun puts out a WIDE spectrum of light, all the way down into the radio bands, and all the way up into the X ray band. You can't separate what is emitted from the Earth vs what the Sun is putting out and is reflected from the Earth. The same frequencies of far infrared are involved.

As a satellite passes over the surface it can see relative changes in emitted light which, to a certain degree, can be interpreted as temperature changes. That's still dicey though, since the emissivity of the surface can change so dramatically from place to place. It's good enough to get a view of weather and such though, which is what we use them for. One cloud looks pretty much like any other as far as emissivity is concerned.

They cannot measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-12-2017 18:30
11-12-2017 18:37
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
There you go with your science again. Save for gravity almost all of the energy in the universe is thermal.

So that stuff coming from the Sun and the stars isn't light, eh? So I guess fusion is thermal energy, eh? What a moron.
[quote]

So in your mind (???) the Sun is not generating light through heat? And the Earth is not heated from that "light"?

You grow wilder-eyed by the minute.
Edited on 11-12-2017 18:38
11-12-2017 20:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So that stuff coming from the Sun and the stars isn't light, eh? So I guess fusion is thermal energy, eh? What a moron.

So in your mind (???) the Sun is not generating light through heat? And the Earth is not heated from that "light"?

You grow wilder-eyed by the minute.


The Sun is generating light via fusion. Didn't you know?

The Earth is heated by that light. It's called radiant heating. That's possible, you know, even though the light is not thermal energy. Light IS heat, if it is absorbed by something.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 11-12-2017 20:15
11-12-2017 20:17
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
There you go with your science again. Save for gravity almost all of the energy in the universe is thermal.

Into the Night wrote:
So that stuff coming from the Sun and the stars isn't light, eh? So I guess fusion is thermal energy, eh? What a moron.
[quote]

So in your mind (???) the Sun is not generating light through heat? And the Earth is not heated from that "light"?

You grow wilder-eyed by the minute.


The Sun is generating light via fusion. Didn't you know?

The Earth is heated by that light. It's called radiant heating. That's possible, you know, even though the light is not thermal energy. Light IS heat, if it is absorbed by something.


Thank you for demonstrating that not only do you not know anything about physics but as I said before you don't have a clue about the Stefan-Boltzman equation which is used to calculate this "holy link".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_constant#/media/File:Blackbody_peak_wavelength_exitance_vs_temperature.svg

I understand that you don't know that heat can be ANY electromagnetic frequency. After all, that doesn't fulfill your claim that energy is colorblind.

But time and time again you show that you aren't even willing to look up the simplest things in science.
11-12-2017 20:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
There you go with your science again. Save for gravity almost all of the energy in the universe is thermal.

Into the Night wrote:
So that stuff coming from the Sun and the stars isn't light, eh? So I guess fusion is thermal energy, eh? What a moron.
[quote]

So in your mind (???) the Sun is not generating light through heat? And the Earth is not heated from that "light"?

You grow wilder-eyed by the minute.


The Sun is generating light via fusion. Didn't you know?

The Earth is heated by that light. It's called radiant heating. That's possible, you know, even though the light is not thermal energy. Light IS heat, if it is absorbed by something.


Thank you for demonstrating that not only do you not know anything about physics but as I said before you don't have a clue about the Stefan-Boltzman equation which is used to calculate this "holy link".

No, it is not. Try again. This graph is a demonstration of Wien's law and Planck's law, not the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
I understand that you don't know that heat can be ANY electromagnetic frequency. After all, that doesn't fulfill your claim that energy is colorblind.
...deleted Mantra 2...

This statement doesn't even make any sense.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2017 20:39
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote: This statement doesn't even make any sense.


Too "sciency" for you huh? I love it when you tell everyone how smart you are and then say things as stupid as you do.
Edited on 11-12-2017 20:45
11-12-2017 21:08
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Hey, insane climate posse - popsicles, how do they work?
12-12-2017 00:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: This statement doesn't even make any sense.


Too "sciency" for you huh? I love it when you tell everyone how smart you are and then say things as stupid as you do.


No, it contains a paradox. The statement denies itself.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-12-2017 00:18
12-12-2017 01:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: This statement doesn't even make any sense.


Too "sciency" for you huh? I love it when you tell everyone how smart you are and then say things as stupid as you do.


No, it contains a paradox. The statement denies itself.


Do you mean the paradox of the Planck constant being used to produce the Stefan constant and your denying any relevancy of the Planck law?
12-12-2017 04:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: This statement doesn't even make any sense.


Too "sciency" for you huh? I love it when you tell everyone how smart you are and then say things as stupid as you do.


No, it contains a paradox. The statement denies itself.


Do you mean the paradox of the Planck constant being used to produce the Stefan constant and your denying any relevancy of the Planck law?


Contextomy. Go back and read the post again.


The Parrot Killer
15-12-2017 16:29
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: This statement doesn't even make any sense.


Too "sciency" for you huh? I love it when you tell everyone how smart you are and then say things as stupid as you do.


No, it contains a paradox. The statement denies itself.


Do you mean the paradox of the Planck constant being used to produce the Stefan constant and your denying any relevancy of the Planck law?


Contextomy. Go back and read the post again.


Your usual kind of comment: "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart".
15-12-2017 20:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: This statement doesn't even make any sense.


Too "sciency" for you huh? I love it when you tell everyone how smart you are and then say things as stupid as you do.


No, it contains a paradox. The statement denies itself.


Do you mean the paradox of the Planck constant being used to produce the Stefan constant and your denying any relevancy of the Planck law?


Contextomy. Go back and read the post again.


Your usual kind of comment: "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart".

Your usual kind kind of insult when you have no argument left.


The Parrot Killer
15-12-2017 21:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: This statement doesn't even make any sense.


Too "sciency" for you huh? I love it when you tell everyone how smart you are and then say things as stupid as you do.


No, it contains a paradox. The statement denies itself.


Do you mean the paradox of the Planck constant being used to produce the Stefan constant and your denying any relevancy of the Planck law?


Contextomy. Go back and read the post again.


Your usual kind of comment: "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart".

Your usual kind kind of insult when you have no argument left.


Gee, you didn't use something from your "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart". That's a novel change. But of course you still haven't shown that you know anything. It gets tiresome when you try to correct someone by spouting ignorance.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1424280/?reload=true

Gee it must be a holy link because it demonstrates that you haven't a single clue about what you're speaking of.
Edited on 15-12-2017 21:07
15-12-2017 22:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: This statement doesn't even make any sense.


Too "sciency" for you huh? I love it when you tell everyone how smart you are and then say things as stupid as you do.


No, it contains a paradox. The statement denies itself.


Do you mean the paradox of the Planck constant being used to produce the Stefan constant and your denying any relevancy of the Planck law?


Contextomy. Go back and read the post again.


Your usual kind of comment: "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart".

Your usual kind kind of insult when you have no argument left.


Gee, you didn't use something from your "Big Book of Words to Make You Sound Smart". That's a novel change. But of course you still haven't shown that you know anything. It gets tiresome when you try to correct someone by spouting ignorance.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/1424280/?reload=true

Gee it must be a holy link because it demonstrates that you haven't a single clue about what you're speaking of.


Unrelated subject. You want to switch the topic of conservation to this now?


The Parrot Killer
15-12-2017 23:55
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote: Unrelated subject. You want to switch the topic of conservation to this now?


It's always comical when you make claim after claim that you cannot measure the temperature of the Earth from and orbiting satellite and then say I'm changing the subject when I reference the very means they achieve that with.

Not only do can then measure the temperature of the Earth as a whole but they can measure the individual temperatures of the atmosphere levels.

Now be a good little boy and go play with your legos.
16-12-2017 00:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Unrelated subject. You want to switch the topic of conservation to this now?


It's always comical when you make claim after claim that you cannot measure the temperature of the Earth from and orbiting satellite and then say I'm changing the subject when I reference the very means they achieve that with.

You ARE changing the subject. Since you want to talk about satellites and their capabilities again, we will do so.

The IEEE document states some things that are possible and some things that aren't. IEEE GRSS is not God. They are a society of folks that are interested in building remote sensors. There is NOTHING about the society that proves anyone knows what they are doing. It is a way to exchange ideas. In many ways, it's like the ARRL or the EAA.

1st, it IS possible to determine relative humidity using light. This is the primary purpose of the satellite system in question.

2nd, it is NOT possible to measure the emissivity of Earth using light. You must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth to do it. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. It IS possible to calibrate a sensor for use with cloud temperature, since most clouds have similar emissivity. Cloud temperature is not the temperature of the Earth.

3rd, it is NOT possible to measure the temperature of the Earth using light. You must first know the emissivity of Earth (see 2).

4th, it is QUITE possible to spend inordinate amounts of money on wrong ideas. Launching a satellite system and expecting more than it can give you is certainly one way to do it.

Wake wrote:
Not only do can then measure the temperature of the Earth as a whole but they can measure the individual temperatures of the atmosphere levels.
...deleted Mantra 1...16...

You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth using a satellite. You don't know the emissivity of Earth. They cannot measure the temperature of individual levels of the atmosphere. It is not possible to determine the emissivity of different levels of the atmosphere just as it's not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth.


The Parrot Killer
16-12-2017 03:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Unrelated subject. You want to switch the topic of conservation to this now?


It's always comical when you make claim after claim that you cannot measure the temperature of the Earth from and orbiting satellite and then say I'm changing the subject when I reference the very means they achieve that with.

You ARE changing the subject. Since you want to talk about satellites and their capabilities again, we will do so.

The IEEE document states some things that are possible and some things that aren't. IEEE GRSS is not God. They are a society of folks that are interested in building remote sensors. There is NOTHING about the society that proves anyone knows what they are doing. It is a way to exchange ideas. In many ways, it's like the ARRL or the EAA.

1st, it IS possible to determine relative humidity using light. This is the primary purpose of the satellite system in question.

2nd, it is NOT possible to measure the emissivity of Earth using light. You must first accurately know the temperature of the Earth to do it. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. It IS possible to calibrate a sensor for use with cloud temperature, since most clouds have similar emissivity. Cloud temperature is not the temperature of the Earth.

3rd, it is NOT possible to measure the temperature of the Earth using light. You must first know the emissivity of Earth (see 2).

4th, it is QUITE possible to spend inordinate amounts of money on wrong ideas. Launching a satellite system and expecting more than it can give you is certainly one way to do it.

Wake wrote:
Not only do can then measure the temperature of the Earth as a whole but they can measure the individual temperatures of the atmosphere levels.
...deleted Mantra 1...16...

You cannot measure the temperature of the Earth using a satellite. You don't know the emissivity of Earth. They cannot measure the temperature of individual levels of the atmosphere. It is not possible to determine the emissivity of different levels of the atmosphere just as it's not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth.


You have no education and cannot understand science. Someone held your hand and gave you one little formula and you believe that you can answer everything under the sun with it.

Now be a good little boy and go play with your legos.




Join the debate Real Temperature Measurement of Earth:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 09:12
Calculating the surface temperature of the moon2016-02-2018 00:51
Clouds and temperature3601-02-2018 20:48
TEMPERATURE DATA released for 20171127-01-2018 23:56
Average Global Temperature of Ocean3918-11-2017 02:19
▲ 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