Remember me
▼ Content

2016 set to be hottest year on record



Page 4 of 4<<<234
07-07-2017 19:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
RealityCheck wrote:


It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.


Good point.

I think it can be argued though that the satellite data can be used as a reasonable proxy to identify global warming/cooling trends over time.
And the trend for the last 20 or so years? ... flat

Regards

No, it can't. There are several problems.

First, is defining 'global warming' without using circular arguments. Just what exactly IS 'global warming'? Is it just the surface? Does it include the atmosphere? How high? The oceans? How deep? Underground? How deep? The 'trend' itself is impossible to identify. You need a start date and end date for measurement. Why are these two points in time significant? Why are any other points in time NOT significant?

The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars.

To know the component that is attributable to Planck radiance, you must know the emissivity of Earth. This is a constant in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which is used. It is a measured value. To measure it, you MUST have the accurate temperature of the object to begin with.

A satellite produces a moving spot of measurement as it passes. This spot is an average over what the satellite sees at any given time. Unfortunately, it's like trying to do microsurgery with poor eyesight. This 'average' is not a good one because the temperature gradient can be so steep. The margin of error calculated from such a statistic is still too high.

The government, on the other hand, needs 'global warming'. The first purpose of any government is to grow and expand itself. It makes no profit. I has no other metric for success. What better opportunity to justify growth of government than 'global warming'? They learned just how well the public was educated in science from the Ozone Hole paranoia.


The Parrot Killer
07-07-2017 19:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Wake wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:


It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.


Good point.

I think it can be argued though that the satellite data can be used as a reasonable proxy to identify global warming/cooling trends over time.
And the trend for the last 20 or so years? ... flat

Regards


The period of time that we have had satellite data is too short to use for anything but comparing the "ground" record with the "satellite" record. And in that case the "ground" record demonstrates a warming trend of approximately 1 degree C while the satellite record shows NO heating at all.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy, dude. Statistical math describes why.
Wake wrote:
What this means is that NASA and NOAA "ground" records have either had no correction for the Urban Heat Island Effect or insufficient correction.
No corrections are allowed in statistics dude. Data MUST be sampled by randN (same random form as cards) by a means independent of any aspect of the data. You MUST use the raw data. Location is significant, especially location grouping. Time is significant. Storms move. The Earth moves. Thermal energy is constantly on the move.

You MUST eliminate these two factors to even begin. You MUST uniformly spread out the thermometers. You MUST take the readings simultaneously (which we could, using a good network). You must calculate the margin of error from the possible temperature gradient, not the thermometers themselves.

No one knows how many thermometers are in the world. No one even knows how many 'official' thermometers are in the world.

The Earth has a surface area of 197 million sq miles. Most of this is unmonitored at present.

Wake wrote:
...deleted insults...
As you can note to him heat is the "flow of thermal energy".

It is.
Wake wrote:
Heat in fact is nothing more than a measured temperature.
Wrong. That is thermal energy, not heat.
Wake wrote:
It doesn't have to "flow" anywhere.
Yes, it does.
Wake wrote:
A reading is completely static.
True.
Wake wrote:
Because any heat above absolute zero radiates thermal energy that radiation has a wavelength.
Wrong. Wien's law describes why. You get a RANGE of different frequencies of light. You don't get a single frequency. That range extends all the way down into the radio band and all the way up to the ultraviolet.
Wake wrote:
"intelligence killer" tells us that it does not.
So does Wien's law.
Wake wrote:
He also doesn't believe that a satellite can measure the heat of an area simply by reading the infrared frequencies of the radiated energy to tell the precise temperatures of any region.
It can't. A satellite can't tell the difference between what is Planck radiance and what is reflected, refracted, or any light passing through the Earth (which is transparent at some frequencies).
Wake wrote:
The finer the resolution the more accurate you can tell temperatures from specific areas....deleted insults...
If and only if you know the emissivity of that area. We do not. It can't be measured either, without first accurately knowing the temperature of the area to begin with. A satellite uses an assumed emissivity. It is only capable of determining differences in temperature, not the temperature itself.


The Parrot Killer
07-07-2017 20:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:


It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.


Good point.

I think it can be argued though that the satellite data can be used as a reasonable proxy to identify global warming/cooling trends over time.
And the trend for the last 20 or so years? ... flat

Regards

No, it can't. There are several problems.

First, is defining 'global warming' without using circular arguments. Just what exactly IS 'global warming'? Is it just the surface? Does it include the atmosphere? How high? The oceans? How deep? Underground? How deep? The 'trend' itself is impossible to identify. You need a start date and end date for measurement. Why are these two points in time significant? Why are any other points in time NOT significant?

The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars.

To know the component that is attributable to Planck radiance, you must know the emissivity of Earth. This is a constant in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which is used. It is a measured value. To measure it, you MUST have the accurate temperature of the object to begin with.

A satellite produces a moving spot of measurement as it passes. This spot is an average over what the satellite sees at any given time. Unfortunately, it's like trying to do microsurgery with poor eyesight. This 'average' is not a good one because the temperature gradient can be so steep. The margin of error calculated from such a statistic is still too high.

The government, on the other hand, needs 'global warming'. The first purpose of any government is to grow and expand itself. It makes no profit. I has no other metric for success. What better opportunity to justify growth of government than 'global warming'? They learned just how well the public was educated in science from the Ozone Hole paranoia.


You are correct that you cannot identify what climate change is and whether it is good or bad.

But you are entirely incorrect when you have the lunatic idea that you cannot measure temperature via radiated thermal energy. You plainly do not understand science of radiated energy and are pretending that you do.

Exactly what gives you the idea that you can only look at some small segment of the Earth from a satellite? In the first place there are two orbits of these satellites - polar orbiting and geosynchronous. Got that? Most of these satellites do not move relative to the Earth's surface.

Apparently you are unaware that thermal energy releases as radiation occurs in the tropopause and stratosphere and have extremely accurate indications of the atmospheric heat - and that is controlled by the surface heat being bled off via conduction and convection to the upper atmosphere to radiate into space.

You do not have any sort of firm understanding of heat, thermal energy or thermal radiation and the differences between them. Can you suggest why you continue to make half-azzed comments about it?

If you do not even have the sense to understand this why are you constantly throwing your BS onto the net?
07-07-2017 20:47
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

The finer the resolution the more accurate you can tell temperatures from specific areas....deleted insults...
If and only if you know the emissivity of that area. We do not. It can't be measured either, without first accurately knowing the temperature of the area to begin with. A satellite uses an assumed emissivity. It is only capable of determining differences in temperature, not the temperature itself.[/quote]

D@mn you are stupid Dude ! You say the Stefan-Boltzmann equation so much you seem to have no idea that there is the Boltzmann Constant. It's this that would allow satellites to determine temperature based on BOLTZMANN's work.
Why you and IBdaMann only mention the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is because ?
Because you don't understand the Boltzmann Constant or why it matters. With me I think it's wrong and if you understand his work like you and IbdaMann claim to, then you'd know why I disagree. :-0
And Into the PotHead, smoke some more dope will ya, because what you and your boyfriend miss is that if properly used, this means expanded upon like Niel deGrasse Tyson states should happen with scientific work then you'd know that when it comes to our climate and warming that it could be better expressed than anything done with any work involving Boltzmann to date.
But you have no clue because you just try to jerk people around. Your last 2 posts shows you making 2 opposing statements. Both can't be right but you are out to mess with people's minds with your pseudo logic. What a JOKE you are !
07-07-2017 20:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The finer the resolution the more accurate you can tell temperatures from specific areas....deleted insults...
If and only if you know the emissivity of that area. We do not. It can't be measured either, without first accurately knowing the temperature of the area to begin with. A satellite uses an assumed emissivity. It is only capable of determining differences in temperature, not the temperature itself.


D@mn you are stupid Dude ! You say the Stefan-Boltzmann equation so much you seem to have no idea that there is the Boltzmann Constant. It's this that would allow satellites to determine temperature based on BOLTZMANN's work.
Why you and IBdaMann only mention the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is because ?
Because you don't understand the Boltzmann Constant or why it matters. With me I think it's wrong and if you understand his work like you and IbdaMann claim to, then you'd know why I disagree. :-0
And Into the PotHead, smoke some more dope will ya, because what you and your boyfriend miss is that if properly used, this means expanded upon like Niel deGrasse Tyson states should happen with scientific work then you'd know that when it comes to our climate and warming that it could be better expressed than anything done with any work involving Boltzmann to date.
But you have no clue because you just try to jerk people around. Your last 2 posts shows you making 2 opposing statements. Both can't be right but you are out to mess with people's minds with your pseudo logic. What a JOKE you are ![/quote]

We just saw him talking about not being able to tell the reflected energy from the Sun or that coming from the atmosphere itself. One would almost think that he never heard of this thing call "night time". He has a real problem thinking about the Earth as a totality.

I might very well disappear off of the group since I am presently being interviewed for an important position designing for a medical firm. So I expect YOU to learn a lot more science than you presently have. You are intelligent enough to understand it but you need a lot more education in that area.

They will only need a programmer of my type for about 6 months or so but at the pay rate I make that will renew my bank account and put a new car in the garage.
07-07-2017 21:02
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
This is for the fun of it. I think people need to do some actual research on their own so they'll better understand the amount of information out there and what they think of it. The quotes are Into the Night's.

>> It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy, dude. Statistical math describes why. <<

Then Boltzmann's Constant must be wrong, right ?

>> You MUST use the raw data. Location is significant, especially location grouping. Time is significant. Storms move. The Earth moves. Thermal energy is constantly on the move. <<

They've been doing this since at least the 1800's. Kind of why Global Annual temperature records start at 1880. It's not because they made it up but because records are kept. And at sea it is normal which also means usually will happen that captains will record in their log books the time, the date, the wind, the air and water temperature as well as other observations.

>> The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars. <<

This is a completely ignorant statement. How does he confuse physical changes in the climate such as white whales migrating away from the waters around and adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel as needing to be measured by satellite ?
If he has no understanding that climate change such as cold waters warming and whales leaving the area for the most part and never returning then he has no understanding of anything except for don't argue with him, he's stoned out of his mind and can't get two protein chains to work together so 3 neurons can hook up to realize a cohesive thought.
Also once again he is saying that Botlzmann's work can't be trusted while he and IBdaMann keep referring to Boltzmann's work. And that actually makes those 2 credible because when they support Boltzmann's work then they are building up their credibility to tear down Boltzmann's work when you're not realizing that they're doing it. I think it's funny when people do that. Kind of why I don't trust the people over seeing the IPCC. They've had to ask people like NOAA to shield them from criticism for their lack of transparency on something that effects a good many people and should be made known to the general public.
Edited on 07-07-2017 21:05
07-07-2017 21:16
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
@All,
This is for the fun of it. I think people need to do some actual research on their own so they'll better understand the amount of information out there and what they think of it. The quotes are Into the Night's.

>> It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy, dude. Statistical math describes why. <<

Then Boltzmann's Constant must be wrong, right ?

>> You MUST use the raw data. Location is significant, especially location grouping. Time is significant. Storms move. The Earth moves. Thermal energy is constantly on the move. <<

They've been doing this since at least the 1800's. Kind of why Global Annual temperature records start at 1880. It's not because they made it up but because records are kept. And at sea it is normal which also means usually will happen that captains will record in their log books the time, the date, the wind, the air and water temperature as well as other observations.

>> The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars. <<

This is a completely ignorant statement. How does he confuse physical changes in the climate such as white whales migrating away from the waters around and adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel as needing to be measured by satellite ?
If he has no understanding that climate change such as cold waters warming and whales leaving the area for the most part and never returning then he has no understanding of anything except for don't argue with him, he's stoned out of his mind and can't get two protein chains to work together so 3 neurons can hook up to realize a cohesive thought.
Also once again he is saying that Botlzmann's work can't be trusted while he and IBdaMann keep referring to Boltzmann's work. And that actually makes those 2 credible because when they support Boltzmann's work then they are building up their credibility to tear down Boltzmann's work when you're not realizing that they're doing it. I think it's funny when people do that. Kind of why I don't trust the people over seeing the IPCC. They've had to ask people like NOAA to shield them from criticism for their lack of transparency on something that effects a good many people and should be made known to the general public.


He has no understanding that the important thing is the delay in the energy received by the Sun and the bleeding off of it into space via radiation processes. The fact IS that unless we claim that the Earth is burning up from the energy from the Sun that this energy MUST balance.

It radiates into space but you can't measure it?

The world works in a way that appears to be beyond his understanding. The warmer the Earth grows the more energy is radiated off at night.

But I am convinced that your worries about whales leaving the vicinity of Greenland is of little importance. We do know that whales are multiplying at almost unbelievable rates. If the Japanese stop whaling it is likely that Catchalots (sperm whales) will multiply like crazy as well and control the numbers of whales which are presently growing to numbers large enough to threaten the environment.

It's like the joke - Al Gore warned us that polar bears could only breed on ice and that we were down to only 5,000 in the last count. Now with the ice rapidly disappearing in the Arctic oceans their numbers are now down to only 25,000.
07-07-2017 23:02
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
This is for the fun of it. I think people need to do some actual research on their own so they'll better understand the amount of information out there and what they think of it. The quotes are Into the Night's.

>> It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy, dude. Statistical math describes why. <<

Then Boltzmann's Constant must be wrong, right ?

>> You MUST use the raw data. Location is significant, especially location grouping. Time is significant. Storms move. The Earth moves. Thermal energy is constantly on the move. <<

They've been doing this since at least the 1800's. Kind of why Global Annual temperature records start at 1880. It's not because they made it up but because records are kept. And at sea it is normal which also means usually will happen that captains will record in their log books the time, the date, the wind, the air and water temperature as well as other observations.

>> The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars. <<

This is a completely ignorant statement. How does he confuse physical changes in the climate such as white whales migrating away from the waters around and adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel as needing to be measured by satellite ?
If he has no understanding that climate change such as cold waters warming and whales leaving the area for the most part and never returning then he has no understanding of anything except for don't argue with him, he's stoned out of his mind and can't get two protein chains to work together so 3 neurons can hook up to realize a cohesive thought.
Also once again he is saying that Botlzmann's work can't be trusted while he and IBdaMann keep referring to Boltzmann's work. And that actually makes those 2 credible because when they support Boltzmann's work then they are building up their credibility to tear down Boltzmann's work when you're not realizing that they're doing it. I think it's funny when people do that. Kind of why I don't trust the people over seeing the IPCC. They've had to ask people like NOAA to shield them from criticism for their lack of transparency on something that effects a good many people and should be made known to the general public.


He has no understanding that the important thing is the delay in the energy received by the Sun and the bleeding off of it into space via radiation processes. The fact IS that unless we claim that the Earth is burning up from the energy from the Sun that this energy MUST balance.

It radiates into space but you can't measure it?

The world works in a way that appears to be beyond his understanding. The warmer the Earth grows the more energy is radiated off at night.

But I am convinced that your worries about whales leaving the vicinity of Greenland is of little importance. We do know that whales are multiplying at almost unbelievable rates. If the Japanese stop whaling it is likely that Catchalots (sperm whales) will multiply like crazy as well and control the numbers of whales which are presently growing to numbers large enough to threaten the environment.

It's like the joke - Al Gore warned us that polar bears could only breed on ice and that we were down to only 5,000 in the last count. Now with the ice rapidly disappearing in the Arctic oceans their numbers are now down to only 25,000.


In your ignorance you failed to mention that White Whales prefer Arctic waters. This demonstrates that the waters around and adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel ARE WARMING. If not then they'd still be there or might even go back.
It seems that 3 people in here like to spread disinformation. But why obfuscate what is happening ? As for polar bears, the concern has been the lack of pack ice. After all, we know that bears breed on land, don't we wake ? It is possible that with less pack ice that the seals that polar bears consume are in greater supply for consumption because for seals to rest they have less pack ice to rest on. You are aware of how this cycle works wake ? You seem to be ignorant of it.
I'll explain. Seals have to SWIM up holes in the ice to rest. This means that ice shelves attached to land means that polar bears won't need to swim out to the ice to get their dinner. Less pack ice might actually cause a decrease in seal population while the polar bear population increases.
This cycle of feeding has been observed in Russia with Snowy Owls and Lemmings. When Lemmings are plentiful then Snowy Owls increase in population. After a sufficient growth in the population of the Snowy Owls then a die off starts because of the Lemming population becoming to low to support Snowy Owls. And wake, I am sure you knew this which is why you thought an increasing polar bear population meant that there was more food available which there is. And then that supply will decrease and then in the Arctic we will see the same cycle of feeding and increase then decrease in the population of a given species.
And wake (what people go to when someone has died) it warms my heart (not really) to know that people like you and Into the Dark Ages know so much when you have an internet connection and apparently only use it to surf porn. except for into the darkness. He's too stoned or making Russian sno-cones and watching reruns of Cheech and Chong's Up In Smoke. Once in a while might be a funny movie to watch but I think he has it on continuous loop LMAO !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT_UtmWOuhM
Edited on 07-07-2017 23:05
07-07-2017 23:11
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: You gotta WARN people....


OK! "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" & "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no-sigh-ants mann" are old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners.
08-07-2017 01:41
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner realitychucked" wrote: Yes definately(sic) troll ... .

yeah.... "AGW denier liar whiner realitychucked" supports AGW denier liar whiners who are also racists & threateners.... cause it don't care if AGW denier liar whiners are racist or threateners?
08-07-2017 06:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
This is for the fun of it. I think people need to do some actual research on their own so they'll better understand the amount of information out there and what they think of it. The quotes are Into the Night's.

>> It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy, dude. Statistical math describes why. <<

Then Boltzmann's Constant must be wrong, right ?

>> You MUST use the raw data. Location is significant, especially location grouping. Time is significant. Storms move. The Earth moves. Thermal energy is constantly on the move. <<

They've been doing this since at least the 1800's. Kind of why Global Annual temperature records start at 1880. It's not because they made it up but because records are kept. And at sea it is normal which also means usually will happen that captains will record in their log books the time, the date, the wind, the air and water temperature as well as other observations.

>> The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars. <<

This is a completely ignorant statement. How does he confuse physical changes in the climate such as white whales migrating away from the waters around and adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel as needing to be measured by satellite ?
If he has no understanding that climate change such as cold waters warming and whales leaving the area for the most part and never returning then he has no understanding of anything except for don't argue with him, he's stoned out of his mind and can't get two protein chains to work together so 3 neurons can hook up to realize a cohesive thought.
Also once again he is saying that Botlzmann's work can't be trusted while he and IBdaMann keep referring to Boltzmann's work. And that actually makes those 2 credible because when they support Boltzmann's work then they are building up their credibility to tear down Boltzmann's work when you're not realizing that they're doing it. I think it's funny when people do that. Kind of why I don't trust the people over seeing the IPCC. They've had to ask people like NOAA to shield them from criticism for their lack of transparency on something that effects a good many people and should be made known to the general public.


He has no understanding that the important thing is the delay in the energy received by the Sun and the bleeding off of it into space via radiation processes. The fact IS that unless we claim that the Earth is burning up from the energy from the Sun that this energy MUST balance.

It radiates into space but you can't measure it?

The world works in a way that appears to be beyond his understanding. The warmer the Earth grows the more energy is radiated off at night.

But I am convinced that your worries about whales leaving the vicinity of Greenland is of little importance. We do know that whales are multiplying at almost unbelievable rates. If the Japanese stop whaling it is likely that Catchalots (sperm whales) will multiply like crazy as well and control the numbers of whales which are presently growing to numbers large enough to threaten the environment.

It's like the joke - Al Gore warned us that polar bears could only breed on ice and that we were down to only 5,000 in the last count. Now with the ice rapidly disappearing in the Arctic oceans their numbers are now down to only 25,000.


In your ignorance you failed to mention that White Whales prefer Arctic waters. This demonstrates that the waters around and adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel ARE WARMING. If not then they'd still be there or might even go back.
It seems that 3 people in here like to spread disinformation. But why obfuscate what is happening ? As for polar bears, the concern has been the lack of pack ice. After all, we know that bears breed on land, don't we wake ? It is possible that with less pack ice that the seals that polar bears consume are in greater supply for consumption because for seals to rest they have less pack ice to rest on. You are aware of how this cycle works wake ? You seem to be ignorant of it.
I'll explain. Seals have to SWIM up holes in the ice to rest. This means that ice shelves attached to land means that polar bears won't need to swim out to the ice to get their dinner. Less pack ice might actually cause a decrease in seal population while the polar bear population increases.
This cycle of feeding has been observed in Russia with Snowy Owls and Lemmings. When Lemmings are plentiful then Snowy Owls increase in population. After a sufficient growth in the population of the Snowy Owls then a die off starts because of the Lemming population becoming to low to support Snowy Owls. And wake, I am sure you knew this which is why you thought an increasing polar bear population meant that there was more food available which there is. And then that supply will decrease and then in the Arctic we will see the same cycle of feeding and increase then decrease in the population of a given species.
And wake (what people go to when someone has died) it warms my heart (not really) to know that people like you and Into the Dark Ages know so much when you have an internet connection and apparently only use it to surf porn. except for into the darkness. He's too stoned or making Russian sno-cones and watching reruns of Cheech and Chong's Up In Smoke. Once in a while might be a funny movie to watch but I think he has it on continuous loop LMAO !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT_UtmWOuhM
08-07-2017 06:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
This is for the fun of it. I think people need to do some actual research on their own so they'll better understand the amount of information out there and what they think of it. The quotes are Into the Night's.

>> It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy, dude. Statistical math describes why. <<

Then Boltzmann's Constant must be wrong, right ?

>> You MUST use the raw data. Location is significant, especially location grouping. Time is significant. Storms move. The Earth moves. Thermal energy is constantly on the move. <<

They've been doing this since at least the 1800's. Kind of why Global Annual temperature records start at 1880. It's not because they made it up but because records are kept. And at sea it is normal which also means usually will happen that captains will record in their log books the time, the date, the wind, the air and water temperature as well as other observations.

>> The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars. <<

This is a completely ignorant statement. How does he confuse physical changes in the climate such as white whales migrating away from the waters around and adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel as needing to be measured by satellite ?
If he has no understanding that climate change such as cold waters warming and whales leaving the area for the most part and never returning then he has no understanding of anything except for don't argue with him, he's stoned out of his mind and can't get two protein chains to work together so 3 neurons can hook up to realize a cohesive thought.
Also once again he is saying that Botlzmann's work can't be trusted while he and IBdaMann keep referring to Boltzmann's work. And that actually makes those 2 credible because when they support Boltzmann's work then they are building up their credibility to tear down Boltzmann's work when you're not realizing that they're doing it. I think it's funny when people do that. Kind of why I don't trust the people over seeing the IPCC. They've had to ask people like NOAA to shield them from criticism for their lack of transparency on something that effects a good many people and should be made known to the general public.


He has no understanding that the important thing is the delay in the energy received by the Sun and the bleeding off of it into space via radiation processes. The fact IS that unless we claim that the Earth is burning up from the energy from the Sun that this energy MUST balance.

It radiates into space but you can't measure it?

The world works in a way that appears to be beyond his understanding. The warmer the Earth grows the more energy is radiated off at night.

But I am convinced that your worries about whales leaving the vicinity of Greenland is of little importance. We do know that whales are multiplying at almost unbelievable rates. If the Japanese stop whaling it is likely that Catchalots (sperm whales) will multiply like crazy as well and control the numbers of whales which are presently growing to numbers large enough to threaten the environment.

It's like the joke - Al Gore warned us that polar bears could only breed on ice and that we were down to only 5,000 in the last count. Now with the ice rapidly disappearing in the Arctic oceans their numbers are now down to only 25,000.


In your ignorance you failed to mention that White Whales prefer Arctic waters. This demonstrates that the waters around and adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel ARE WARMING. If not then they'd still be there or might even go back.
It seems that 3 people in here like to spread disinformation. But why obfuscate what is happening ? As for polar bears, the concern has been the lack of pack ice. After all, we know that bears breed on land, don't we wake ? It is possible that with less pack ice that the seals that polar bears consume are in greater supply for consumption because for seals to rest they have less pack ice to rest on. You are aware of how this cycle works wake ? You seem to be ignorant of it.
I'll explain. Seals have to SWIM up holes in the ice to rest. This means that ice shelves attached to land means that polar bears won't need to swim out to the ice to get their dinner. Less pack ice might actually cause a decrease in seal population while the polar bear population increases.
This cycle of feeding has been observed in Russia with Snowy Owls and Lemmings. When Lemmings are plentiful then Snowy Owls increase in population. After a sufficient growth in the population of the Snowy Owls then a die off starts because of the Lemming population becoming to low to support Snowy Owls. And wake, I am sure you knew this which is why you thought an increasing polar bear population meant that there was more food available which there is. And then that supply will decrease and then in the Arctic we will see the same cycle of feeding and increase then decrease in the population of a given species.
And wake (what people go to when someone has died) it warms my heart (not really) to know that people like you and Into the Dark Ages know so much when you have an internet connection and apparently only use it to surf porn. except for into the darkness. He's too stoned or making Russian sno-cones and watching reruns of Cheech and Chong's Up In Smoke. Once in a while might be a funny movie to watch but I think he has it on continuous loop LMAO !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT_UtmWOuhM


In your rush to tell me how ignorant I am you forgot to add that Beluga's are ALSO subarctic animals. That Humpbacks and Grey Whales give berth in Gulf of California and then move north to Arctic waters which they prefer.

With your added drive to display your ignorance you, like others, have the idea that seals don't know how to swim. That they have to climb onto ice when in fact in the summers they ALWAYS live upon and bred on iceless shores. Polar bears with a population of 25,000 are going to wipe out the Harp seal population of almost 10 million. And that is only ONE of the species upon which polar bears feed. There is also other Arctic seals, Walruses etc.

Tell me, exactly what gives you the idea that lemmings which grow to such numbers that they gang up in numbers of tens of millions after eating all the available food and jump off of shore cliffs but according to you will be wiped out by a few thousand Snowy Owls. Or doesn't it occur to you that Owls are territorial and their numbers are self limiting and NOT by the food supply?

James - I suggest that you ACTUALLY learn something instead of repeating the mindless crap from your man-made global warming websites.

Tell me - you act like a mindless punk - is that what you really are?
08-07-2017 17:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:


It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.


Good point.

I think it can be argued though that the satellite data can be used as a reasonable proxy to identify global warming/cooling trends over time.
And the trend for the last 20 or so years? ... flat

Regards

No, it can't. There are several problems.

First, is defining 'global warming' without using circular arguments. Just what exactly IS 'global warming'? Is it just the surface? Does it include the atmosphere? How high? The oceans? How deep? Underground? How deep? The 'trend' itself is impossible to identify. You need a start date and end date for measurement. Why are these two points in time significant? Why are any other points in time NOT significant?

The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars.

To know the component that is attributable to Planck radiance, you must know the emissivity of Earth. This is a constant in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which is used. It is a measured value. To measure it, you MUST have the accurate temperature of the object to begin with.

A satellite produces a moving spot of measurement as it passes. This spot is an average over what the satellite sees at any given time. Unfortunately, it's like trying to do microsurgery with poor eyesight. This 'average' is not a good one because the temperature gradient can be so steep. The margin of error calculated from such a statistic is still too high.

The government, on the other hand, needs 'global warming'. The first purpose of any government is to grow and expand itself. It makes no profit. I has no other metric for success. What better opportunity to justify growth of government than 'global warming'? They learned just how well the public was educated in science from the Ozone Hole paranoia.


You are correct that you cannot identify what climate change is and whether it is good or bad.

But you are entirely incorrect when you have the lunatic idea that you cannot measure temperature via radiated thermal energy.

IF and only IF you know the emissivity. No one knows the emissivity of Earth or any other planet.
Wake wrote:
You plainly do not understand science of radiated energy and are pretending that you do.[quote]
The science of radiated energy is governed by a surprisingly few set of laws, some of which you seem to like to ignore.
[quote]Wake wrote:
Exactly what gives you the idea that you can only look at some small segment of the Earth from a satellite? In the first place there are two orbits of these satellites - polar orbiting and geosynchronous. Got that? Most of these satellites do not move relative to the Earth's surface.[quote]
Most satellites move relative to the Earth's surface. The satellite system in question MUST move relative to the Earth's surface to get a chance at measuring more than one spot, dumbass. Only certain communications satellites and certain weather satellites are put into geosynchronous orbit.
[quote]Wake wrote:
Apparently you are unaware that thermal energy releases as radiation occurs in the tropopause and stratosphere and have extremely accurate indications of the atmospheric heat[quote]
Aren't you forgetting something? Like the surface? Do you not think it radiates light as well?
[quote]Wake wrote:
- and that is controlled by the surface heat being bled off via conduction and convection to the upper atmosphere to radiate into space.[quote]
Apparently to you the surface doesn't radiate light at all, and therefore must be at absolute zero.
[quote]Wake wrote:
You do not have any sort of firm understanding of heat, thermal energy or thermal radiation and the differences between them. Can you suggest why you continue to make half-azzed comments about it?[quote]
You clearly do not understand what Wien's law is describing. You clearly do not understand what the Stefan-Boltzmann law is describing. You have clearly shown you do not understand what 'heat' is, or the differences between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
[quote]Wake wrote:
If you do not even have the sense to understand this why are you constantly throwing your BS onto the net?

If you think Wien's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is BS, then it is YOU that is denying science. Don't try contextomies with me. I'll call you out on them.


The Parrot Killer
08-07-2017 18:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
James_ wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
If and only if you know the emissivity of that area. We do not. It can't be measured either, without first accurately knowing the temperature of the area to begin with. A satellite uses an assumed emissivity. It is only capable of determining differences in temperature, not the temperature itself.

James_ wrote:
...deleted insult...You say the Stefan-Boltzmann equation so much you seem to have no idea that there is the Boltzmann Constant. It's this that would allow satellites to determine temperature based on BOLTZMANN's work.

The Boltzmann Constant does not do this. This constant of nature basically converts the equation to our systems of measurement...that's all.

You cannot use the S-B law to calculate temperature unless you know the emissivity of the body in question. You can't determine emissivity without knowing the temperature of the body in question.

The S-B does not calculate temperature. It calculates radiance from a known temperature and emissivity.
James_ wrote:
Why you and IBdaMann only mention the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is because ?
...deleted redundant rant and insults...

Because it shoots down the so-called 'greenhouse theory'. The Magick Bouncing Photon model can't work because of it. The 2nd law of thermodynamics agrees with S-B on this point.

You cannot reduce radiance by not allowing light to leave and have the temperature increase at the same time, even if that light is only a certain band of light. Radiance is never inversely proportional to temperature.

Similarly, you cannot decrease entropy. Assuming the Earth and it's atmosphere as the boundaries of a closed system (excluding the Sun), neither carbon dioxide nor any other Holy Gas is going to warm the Earth.

Assuming the closed system DOES include the Sun, then you must assume it includes space as well. The energy entering the Earth equals the energy leaving the Earth. The only thing that can change that is to change the source of energy...the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
08-07-2017 18:09
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

Tell me, exactly what gives you the idea that lemmings which grow to such numbers that they gang up in numbers of tens of millions after eating all the available food and jump off of shore cliffs but according to you will be wiped out by a few thousand Snowy Owls. Or doesn't it occur to you that Owls are territorial and their numbers are self limiting and NOT by the food supply?

James - I suggest that you ACTUALLY learn something instead of repeating the mindless crap from your man-made global warming websites.

Tell me - you act like a mindless punk - is that what you really are?


Wake,
There is something I have not understood about you, Into the Night and IBdaMann. Between the 3 of you it seems that not one of you understands that about all scientists agree that climate change is happening. Not one of you seem to be aware of that fact. Why ?
The reason there is a "debate" is not if our planet is warming but if industrialization and deforestation are increasing it's effects. The discussion hasn't been very well focused and this could be because the media itself can get more viewers by spurring the wrong debate/discussion by the stories it pursues.
What the focus should have stayed on is how can we tell the difference between natural and accelerated climate change ? The White Whales help to show one aspect of climate change and they showed it in 1920 before CO2 levels started rising. That's one reason why I am aware of them being whales that prefer the frigid waters of the Arctic to warmer waters like those of the Catalina Islands off of the coast of California. They helped to show that natural climate change does happen and it can be quite pronounced.
At the same time I cannot discount increased industrialization and urbanization.
We (countries in the northern hemisphere) are dumping a significant amount of heat into the atmosphere and to a lesser extent the Gulf Stream.
And since the Gulf Stream flowing north is slowing, if it changes course then it would be bad for Russia as well as most of Europe. Myself, I think we're talking centuries here. And until then the ability of our planet to warm is significant.
One thing you did get wrong is my reading >> I suggest that you ACTUALLY learn something instead of repeating the mindless crap from your man-made global warming websites. <<
I don't visit them. Most of what I read comes from research that scientists have done so quite often it is a publication associated with a university or from what I have considered from what I know about physics. And this is where my experiment is important Wake. If I can show a more complete Chapman cycle then I would also be changing the discussion on climate change as well. After all, I would be proving that we need CO2 in our atmosphere. I do have a project that I am pursuing which if successful will allow me to pursue the experiment on my own. And at the end of the day all you can do is to try and spread disinformation.

BTW, while scientists consider atmospheric air pressure to be 1.031 kgf/cm^2 that is actually the force that a column of water 1 cm^2 has that is 9.8 m's high. What this does, it probably makes it difficult to consider KE = 3/2KT where K is Boltzmann's Constant and K is the temperature in Kelvins.
There are a couple of reasons for this. It considers an ideal gas while gases will have different temperatures for changing from a liquid to a gas. And if "mixing" gases allows for a percussive effect then T might increase or decrease by releasing stored energy. This would be observed by a change in pressure and or volume if the T remains constant when the composition of gases is changed while it's volume is initially the same. This is because until heat is released then gases will still be conserving momentum as dictated by the previous "mixture" of gases.
Or a more basic way of saying it, if adding or subtracting a specific volume of a gas causes a larger change in the mixture that is being modified then a percussive effect would be showing itself. I think this is something that has yet to be considered. If you look at the math it doesn't seem to be accounted for, does it Wake ? So, what do you think Wake ?

@All,
One thing I mentioned on Neil deGrasse Tyson's facebook page is that at night that atmosheric gases most likely store energy as a function of Conservation of Momentum and that during the day fewer watts/m^2 are needed to release this energy. Why this matters is what I consider might be a "percussive" effect where changing levels of a gas or it's state of excitement such as CO2 could increase or decrease the amount of energy relative to it's mass. And this would suggest that gases can store energy at night instead of releasing it out into space.
Edited on 08-07-2017 18:33
08-07-2017 18:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Wake wrote:
We just saw him talking about not being able to tell the reflected energy from the Sun or that coming from the atmosphere itself. One would almost think that he never heard of this thing call "night time". He has a real problem thinking about the Earth as a totality.

The night side of Earth tends to get ignored by a lot of people in the 'global warming' community until they want to use it to show how a Holy Gas can keep the Earth warm at night.

The trouble is, they can't use the Magick Bouncing Photon theory anymore, since there is no Sun to add to the energy.

Using S-B to measure the surface at night is not as easy as it sounds. Some light DOES get around the night side of the Earth from the Sun. It just doesn't happen to be visible light. Indeed, the Earth is transparent to certain frequencies of light coming from the Sun.

The surface is also cooling at a rate determined by the specific heat of the various materials on the surface and in the atmosphere. You don't know what those materials are. It could be ocean, it could be land, the atmosphere moves around, etc.

In other words, you don't know how fast the Earth 'should be' cooling at night. Because of this factor alone, you can't determine the emissivity of Earth, even at night.

Looking at the night side of the Earth does the same thing most warmazombies do when looking at the daytime side only. They are ignoring the other side of the Earth.

Wake wrote:
I might very well disappear off of the group since I am presently being interviewed for an important position designing for a medical firm.
Out of work, eh? Hope you get the job. At least programmers are in demand.
Wake wrote:
So I expect YOU to learn a lot more science than you presently have. You are intelligent enough to understand it but you need a lot more education in that area.
Contextomy. It is YOU that is denying science.
Wake wrote:
They will only need a programmer of my type for about 6 months or so but at the pay rate I make that will renew my bank account and put a new car in the garage.

Short contract, eh? Doesn't sound like that important a position.


The Parrot Killer
08-07-2017 18:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
James_ wrote:
This is for the fun of it. I think people need to do some actual research on their own so they'll better understand the amount of information out there and what they think of it. The quotes are Into the Night's.
Into the Night
It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to any useful degree of accuracy, dude. Statistical math describes why.

Then Boltzmann's Constant must be wrong, right ?

Boltzmann's Constant is a constant. It is not algebra. It does not magickally make the equation able to calculate temperature from the radiance coming from a body of unknown emissivity.
James_ wrote:
Into the Night
You MUST use the raw data. Location is significant, especially location grouping. Time is significant. Storms move. The Earth moves. Thermal energy is constantly on the move.

They've been doing this since at least the 1800's.

No, they haven't.
James_ wrote:
Kind of why Global Annual temperature records start at 1880.

There is no global temperature record. There never was.
James_ wrote:
It's not because they made it up but because records are kept.

There are no records kept of global temperature. It is not possible to determine it to any useful degree of accuracy.
James_ wrote:
And at sea it is normal which also means usually will happen that captains will record in their log books the time, the date, the wind, the air and water temperature as well as other observations.

Which gives the temperature for that location only, at the time only. It does not give the temperature of any other location or at any other time. It is not a global temperature.
James_ wrote:
Into the Night
The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars.

This is a completely ignorant statement. How does he confuse physical changes in the climate such as white whales migrating away from the waters around and adjacent to Greenland below the 66th parallel as needing to be measured by satellite ?

If he has no understanding that climate change such as cold waters warming and whales leaving the area for the most part and never returning

A satellite can only track a tagged whale. There are about 3 dozen of them so tagged. These whales are not leaving the arctic. They migrate back and forth following their food supply.
James_ wrote:
...deleted insults...Also once again he is saying that Botlzmann's work can't be trusted

Since we are using the S-B equation, you are saying we don't trust the equation we are using. WTF???
James_ wrote:
I think it's funny when people do that. Kind of why I don't trust the people over seeing the IPCC. They've had to ask people like NOAA to shield them from criticism for their lack of transparency on something that effects a good many people and should be made known to the general public.

The IPCC didn't have to ask NOAA to shield them. NOAA and NASA are doing what they are doing because of presidential order. It is simply our own government trying to justify it's growth into more of your life. Indeed, both NOAA and NASA have referred to the IPCC as if it was a Holy Oracle of Truth.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-07-2017 18:35
08-07-2017 18:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
James_ wrote:
There is something I have not understood about you, Into the Night and IBdaMann. Between the 3 of you it seems that not one of you understands that about all scientists agree that climate change is happening.

Argument from randU. You cannot speak for all scientists. Also, consensus is not used in science.
James_ wrote:
Not one of you seem to be aware of that fact. Why ?

Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. You are confusing a 'fact' with an 'argument'.
James_ wrote:
The reason there is a "debate" is not if our planet is warming

You decided to ignore that debate as if it doesn't exist, eh? Talk about sticking your head in the sand...
James_ wrote:
but if industrialization and deforestation are increasing it's effects.

What effects?? Define 'global warming' without using any circular argument, link, or quotes.
James_ wrote:
The discussion hasn't been very well focused and this could be because the media itself can get more viewers by spurring the wrong debate/discussion by the stories it pursues.

You don't get to speak for everyone in the media either.
James_ wrote:
What the focus should have stayed on is how can we tell the difference between natural and accelerated climate change ?

Define 'climate change' without using circular arguments, links, or quotes.

Note there is no 'climate of Earth'. Earth contains many climates.
James_ wrote:
The White Whales help to show one aspect of climate change and they showed it in 1920 before CO2 levels started rising.

White whales weren't tracked or tagged until 2008, dumbass. Only about 3 dozen are tagged at all. We don't monitor the others.
James_ wrote:
That's one reason why I am aware of them being whales that prefer the frigid waters of the Arctic to warmer waters like those of the Catalina Islands off of the coast of California.

Hmmmm. Interesting reference. Are you one of those illiterate Californians that think they have a good bead on science?
James_ wrote:
They helped to show that natural climate change does happen and it can be quite pronounced.

The white whale tracking program has only shown that white whales migrate with the seasons. That's nothing new. They also show how deep they like to dive for food. That's new.
James_ wrote:
At the same time I cannot discount increased industrialization and urbanization.

You need to get out in the country more.
James_ wrote:
We (countries in the northern hemisphere) are dumping a significant amount of heat into the atmosphere

Good. That means it radiates into space better.

Do you realize how insignificant our contribution to the total thermal in the atmosphere is?
James_ wrote:
and to a lesser extent the Gulf Stream.

The Gulf Stream is not warming.
James_ wrote:
And since the Gulf Stream flowing north is slowing,

No, it isn't. BTW, did you know that warmer Gulf Stream would actually increase its flow to the north?
James_ wrote:
if it changes course

It changes course every minute of every day.
James_ wrote:
then it would be bad for Russia

Russia is not affected by the Gulf Stream.
James_ wrote:
as well as most of Europe.

Only northern Europe is affected by the weather as a result of the Gulf stream. That has a very minor affect.
James_ wrote:
Myself, I think we're talking centuries here.

The Gulf Stream changes course every minute of every day.
James_ wrote:
And until then the ability of our planet to warm is significant.

Don't think so. The math just isn't there to support such a statement.


The Parrot Killer
08-07-2017 19:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
RealityCheck wrote:
[quote]

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. We simply do not have the instrumentation for it.


Good point.

I think it can be argued though that the satellite data can be used as a reasonable proxy to identify global warming/cooling trends over time.
And the trend for the last 20 or so years? ... flat

Regards

No, it can't. There are several problems.

First, is defining 'global warming' without using circular arguments. Just what exactly IS 'global warming'? Is it just the surface? Does it include the atmosphere? How high? The oceans? How deep? Underground? How deep? The 'trend' itself is impossible to identify. You need a start date and end date for measurement. Why are these two points in time significant? Why are any other points in time NOT significant?

The same problem with definition is the same for 'climate change'.

Second, satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. This does NOT give an accurate indication of temperature, due to the combination of light from Planck radiance and reflected light from the Sun and stars.

To know the component that is attributable to Planck radiance, you must know the emissivity of Earth. This is a constant in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation which is used. It is a measured value. To measure it, you MUST have the accurate temperature of the object to begin with.

A satellite produces a moving spot of measurement as it passes. This spot is an average over what the satellite sees at any given time. Unfortunately, it's like trying to do microsurgery with poor eyesight. This 'average' is not a good one because the temperature gradient can be so steep. The margin of error calculated from such a statistic is still too high.

The government, on the other hand, needs 'global warming'. The first purpose of any government is to grow and expand itself. It makes no profit. I has no other metric for success. What better opportunity to justify growth of government than 'global warming'? They learned just how well the public was educated in science from the Ozone Hole paranoia.


You are correct that you cannot identify what climate change is and whether it is good or bad.

But you are entirely incorrect when you have the lunatic idea that you cannot measure temperature via radiated thermal energy.

IF and only IF you know the emissivity. No one knows the emissivity of Earth or any other planet.
Wake wrote:
You plainly do not understand science of radiated energy and are pretending that you do.

The science of radiated energy is governed by a surprisingly few set of laws, some of which you seem to like to ignore.
[quote]Wake wrote:
Exactly what gives you the idea that you can only look at some small segment of the Earth from a satellite? In the first place there are two orbits of these satellites - polar orbiting and geosynchronous. Got that? Most of these satellites do not move relative to the Earth's surface.[quote]
Most satellites move relative to the Earth's surface. The satellite system in question MUST move relative to the Earth's surface to get a chance at measuring more than one spot, dumbass. Only certain communications satellites and certain weather satellites are put into geosynchronous orbit.
[quote]Wake wrote:
Apparently you are unaware that thermal energy releases as radiation occurs in the tropopause and stratosphere and have extremely accurate indications of the atmospheric heat[quote]
Aren't you forgetting something? Like the surface? Do you not think it radiates light as well?
[quote]Wake wrote:
- and that is controlled by the surface heat being bled off via conduction and convection to the upper atmosphere to radiate into space.[quote]
Apparently to you the surface doesn't radiate light at all, and therefore must be at absolute zero.
[quote]Wake wrote:
You do not have any sort of firm understanding of heat, thermal energy or thermal radiation and the differences between them. Can you suggest why you continue to make half-azzed comments about it?[quote]
You clearly do not understand what Wien's law is describing. You clearly do not understand what the Stefan-Boltzmann law is describing. You have clearly shown you do not understand what 'heat' is, or the differences between thermal energy and electromagnetic energy.
[quote]Wake wrote:
If you do not even have the sense to understand this why are you constantly throwing your BS onto the net?

If you think Wien's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is BS, then it is YOU that is denying science. Don't try contextomies with me. I'll call you out on them.


Exactly why do you mention Wein's Displacement Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law when you don't have the slightest idea what they mean?
08-07-2017 19:49
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night,
Your post is a good example of why you dislike links. You believe that if you are certain of yourself then everyone will believe you. After all if you didn't know what you were talking about then you wouldn't be so self assured, right ? Yet you discount science and then will say you accept the Stefan-Boltzmann equation while saying the Boltzmann Constant can't be demonstrated. And it's the Boltzmann Constant that states atmospheric temperature.
This is strange, your argument that is. You say a satellite can't observe the change in the state of atmospheric gases yet you accept that a computer can tell the difference between the spin of an electron by the change in wavelength or it's frequency/amplitude. That's basically the same thing and is why we can communicate online yet you will say we lack the technology to do what we are doing.
Edited on 08-07-2017 19:50
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate 2016 set to be hottest year on record:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Alaska, July, hottest month every recorded...119-08-2019 07:13
Hottest day on record (going back to 1880s) in Paris6730-07-2019 00:02
record high temp in france7808-07-2019 06:18
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Climate change could cost the U.S. economy hundreds of billions a year by 2090030-04-2019 15:38
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact