Remember me
▼ Content

2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
31-01-2021 17:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
James___ wrote: What's being overlooked is what if the Earth is absorbing energy?

That would be the correct presumption. Einstein published an article explaining how the sun loses mass per its radiation and the earth gains mass per its absorption thereof.

James___ wrote:[Earth] could be gaining mass.

What can you therefore conclude by the earth being in equilibrium?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2021 17:11
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: What's being overlooked is what if the Earth is absorbing energy?

That would be the correct presumption. Einstein published an article explaining how the sun loses mass per its radiation and the earth gains mass per its absorption thereof.

James___ wrote:[Earth] could be gaining mass.

What can you therefore conclude by the earth being in equilibrium?


.


31-01-2021 17:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Swan wrote













.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2021 20:22
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:It was already said the various wavelength bands are measured.

If wavelengths/frequencies are involved, you are not using Stefan-Boltzmann.



First commandment for AGW deniers.

Thou shalt worship only the Stefan-Boltzmann inference formula, and no others!



Edited on 31-01-2021 20:23
31-01-2021 20:29
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Reflection, refaction, and emission are not frequencies. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency component. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Spongy Iris wrote:
E is a constant which I read is input into the formula as 1.

WRONG. Earth is not an ideal black body. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.



What's being overlooked is what if the Earth is absorbing energy? It could be gaining mass. We know the solar constant is about 1,366 w/m^2. Is that in the magnetosphere?
What would actually need to be done is measure the solar constant at different elevations. Then have those sensors face the Earth itself and measure what is being emitted from the Earth. I don't think that has been done yet.


There is no sun light hitting the north pole from Feb 13 to Feb 20.

Must be the energy is coming from some place like the magnetosphere...


31-01-2021 21:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Spongy Iris wrote:First commandment for AGW deniers. Thou shalt worship only the Stefan-Boltzmann inference formula, and no others!

First commandment of wamizombies: Deny Science.

The wamizombie creed:

I believe in one Climate,
the warming of the globe,
maker of forcings and feedbacks,
of all things unseen and feared.

I believe in one Privilege,
the Only Begotten Son of white males,
born of the 1% before Wall Street and WalMart.

I believe in true Climate Justice
not begotten, but made, consubstantial with the Climate;
through her all Justice is made.
For us men and of our taxation

She ascended into government
and is seated at the right hand of our leaders.
She will command again in glory
to revise history as often as it takes
and her kingdom will have no end
because she will never lose another election.

I believe in the Wealth Redistribution,
the punishment of those who dare to add value,
I believe in one, holy, Church of Green
I confess one indoctrination for the surrender of will
and of all independent thought. Amen.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
31-01-2021 21:56
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2120)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:First commandment for AGW deniers. Thou shalt worship only the Stefan-Boltzmann inference formula, and no others!

First commandment of wamizombies: Deny Science.

The wamizombie creed:

I believe in one Climate,
the warming of the globe,
maker of forcings and feedbacks,
of all things unseen and feared.

I believe in one Privilege,
the Only Begotten Son of white males,
born of the 1% before Wall Street and WalMart.

I believe in true Climate Justice
not begotten, but made, consubstantial with the Climate;
through her all Justice is made.
For us men and of our taxation

She ascended into government
and is seated at the right hand of our leaders.
She will command again in glory
to revise history as often as it takes
and her kingdom will have no end
because she will never lose another election.

I believe in the Wealth Redistribution,
the punishment of those who dare to add value,
I believe in one, holy, Church of Green
I confess one indoctrination for the surrender of will
and of all independent thought. Amen.

.


So beautiful. I'm on my knees, begging climate forgiveness of my carbon sins.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
01-02-2021 00:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:It was already said the various wavelength bands are measured.

If wavelengths/frequencies are involved, you are not using Stefan-Boltzmann.



First commandment for AGW deniers.

Thou shalt worship only the Stefan-Boltzmann inference formula, and no others!

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU trying to add a frequency component to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
01-02-2021 02:25
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:It was already said the various wavelength bands are measured.

If wavelengths/frequencies are involved, you are not using Stefan-Boltzmann.



First commandment for AGW deniers.

Thou shalt worship only the Stefan-Boltzmann inference formula, and no others!

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU trying to add a frequency component to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Don't be ridiculous. I'm just saying there must be more than one formula to infer temperature.



Edited on 01-02-2021 02:26
01-02-2021 02:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Spongy Iris wrote: I'm just saying there must be more than one formula to infer temperature.

Infer? That only works if someone is implying a temperature.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. You don't get to selectively dis-apply it under any scenario.

Every warmizombie with whom I have ever discussed Greenhouse Effect has had his argument suffer an immediate death upon running smack into Stefan-Boltzmann. At such point and time, all warmizombies struggle to selectively dis-apply Stefan-Boltzmann in a desperate flail to keep their religious dogma alive. The mental gymnastics become phenomenal at that point.

In the end, Stefan-Boltzmann remains standing because it is science and cannot be dis-applied, avoided, bypassed, or end-run.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2021 03:54
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: I'm just saying there must be more than one formula to infer temperature.

Infer? That only works if someone is implying a temperature.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. You don't get to selectively dis-apply it under any scenario.

Every warmizombie with whom I have ever discussed Greenhouse Effect has had his argument suffer an immediate death upon running smack into Stefan-Boltzmann. At such point and time, all warmizombies struggle to selectively dis-apply Stefan-Boltzmann in a desperate flail to keep their religious dogma alive. The mental gymnastics become phenomenal at that point.

In the end, Stefan-Boltzmann remains standing because it is science and cannot be dis-applied, avoided, bypassed, or end-run.

.


Whoever puts Satellites into orbit must have a better formula, but I can't find it. I will have to take their word for it for now.


01-02-2021 04:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Spongy Iris wrote: Whoever puts Satellites into orbit must have a better formula, but I can't find it.

NASA puts things into orbit and they use Stefan-Boltzmann.

Spongy Iris wrote: I will have to take their word for it for now.

Science is not a subjective matter of opinion and it is not a matter of consensus. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. You don't get to dis-apply it.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2021 14:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:It was already said the various wavelength bands are measured.

If wavelengths/frequencies are involved, you are not using Stefan-Boltzmann.



First commandment for AGW deniers.

Thou shalt worship only the Stefan-Boltzmann inference formula, and no others!

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU trying to add a frequency component to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Don't be ridiculous. I'm just saying there must be more than one formula to infer temperature.

None. No formula infers temperature at all. The Stefan-Boltzmann law relates average thermal energy (what we call temperature) converted into electromagnetic energy (light, measured in watts per square area of emitting surface). There is more than one way to produce light, not related to temperature at all.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 01-02-2021 14:20
01-02-2021 15:18
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: I'm just saying there must be more than one formula to infer temperature.

Infer? That only works if someone is implying a temperature.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. You don't get to selectively dis-apply it under any scenario.

Every warmizombie with whom I have ever discussed Greenhouse Effect has had his argument suffer an immediate death upon running smack into Stefan-Boltzmann. At such point and time, all warmizombies struggle to selectively dis-apply Stefan-Boltzmann in a desperate flail to keep their religious dogma alive. The mental gymnastics become phenomenal at that point.

In the end, Stefan-Boltzmann remains standing because it is science and cannot be dis-applied, avoided, bypassed, or end-run.

.


Whoever puts Satellites into orbit must have a better formula, but I can't find it. I will have to take their word for it for now.



With satellites, they get a return off of gasses. It would probably depend on the satellite. This is because of mixing rates of gasses and their isotopes at different temperatures.
Can a radar detect what state (how excited) molecules are? If so, this would change the feedback. Just consider a Doppler weather radar. How does it infer cloud density or lack of? They also it seems detect temperatures as well. This could be based on the density of the atmosphere.
Satellites are highly advanced radars. And like radars, things in the atmosphere will reflect certain frequencies of E = hc/λ. It's this "return" and the time it takes to bounce back that could determine what a temperature in a region is.
02-02-2021 01:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: I'm just saying there must be more than one formula to infer temperature.

Infer? That only works if someone is implying a temperature.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. You don't get to selectively dis-apply it under any scenario.

Every warmizombie with whom I have ever discussed Greenhouse Effect has had his argument suffer an immediate death upon running smack into Stefan-Boltzmann. At such point and time, all warmizombies struggle to selectively dis-apply Stefan-Boltzmann in a desperate flail to keep their religious dogma alive. The mental gymnastics become phenomenal at that point.

In the end, Stefan-Boltzmann remains standing because it is science and cannot be dis-applied, avoided, bypassed, or end-run.

.


Whoever puts Satellites into orbit must have a better formula, but I can't find it. I will have to take their word for it for now.



With satellites, they get a return off of gasses. It would probably depend on the satellite. This is because of mixing rates of gasses and their isotopes at different temperatures.
Can a radar detect what state (how excited) molecules are? If so, this would change the feedback. Just consider a Doppler weather radar. How does it infer cloud density or lack of? They also it seems detect temperatures as well. This could be based on the density of the atmosphere.
Satellites are highly advanced radars. And like radars, things in the atmosphere will reflect certain frequencies of E = hc/λ. It's this "return" and the time it takes to bounce back that could determine what a temperature in a region is.


Yet another denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 02-02-2021 01:27
02-02-2021 01:54
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: I'm just saying there must be more than one formula to infer temperature.

Infer? That only works if someone is implying a temperature.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. You don't get to selectively dis-apply it under any scenario.

Every warmizombie with whom I have ever discussed Greenhouse Effect has had his argument suffer an immediate death upon running smack into Stefan-Boltzmann. At such point and time, all warmizombies struggle to selectively dis-apply Stefan-Boltzmann in a desperate flail to keep their religious dogma alive. The mental gymnastics become phenomenal at that point.

In the end, Stefan-Boltzmann remains standing because it is science and cannot be dis-applied, avoided, bypassed, or end-run.

.


Whoever puts Satellites into orbit must have a better formula, but I can't find it. I will have to take their word for it for now.



With satellites, they get a return off of gasses. It would probably depend on the satellite. This is because of mixing rates of gasses and their isotopes at different temperatures.
Can a radar detect what state (how excited) molecules are? If so, this would change the feedback. Just consider a Doppler weather radar. How does it infer cloud density or lack of? They also it seems detect temperatures as well. This could be based on the density of the atmosphere.
Satellites are highly advanced radars. And like radars, things in the atmosphere will reflect certain frequencies of E = hc/λ. It's this "return" and the time it takes to bounce back that could determine what a temperature in a region is.


Yet another denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.



And as it slowly dies, you and IBDM begin to salivate little by little.
02-02-2021 02:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
James___ wrote:And as it slowly dies, you and IBDM begin to salivate little by little.

Dude, I salivate a lot at a time, but it has to be my wife's cooking.

Do your research and come to the table prepared.

.
Attached image:

02-02-2021 02:51
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Which measurement is more accurate: taking Earth's surface temperature from the ground or from space?
Since satellites technically measure neither temperature nor the surface (where people live), it's safe to say that ground thermometers are more accurate than satellite measurements.

Here's why:

Satellites measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere and then scientists work hard to convert that information to temperatures using computer models, which are simulations that help us better understand our planet's complexities, like a laboratory in a computer.
Scientists take brightness data from 16 different satellites. Imagine getting a box of puzzle pieces but with no reference picture to show you what the completed puzzle will look like. Experts deal with a similar challenge by taking information from all of those satellites that were launched in different decades since 1978 and figuring out how the pieces best fit together.
Satellites measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere at different altitudes. For example, the layer of air measured closest to where people live is at the altitude where birds and airplanes fly. Scientists take and blend various measurements up to a height of nearly 23,000 feet (about 7,000 meters).

I fail to see how anyone can believe this wank from NASA as usual I read making it up to fill in the gaps and governments are going to make policies based on this work of fiction
03-02-2021 22:01
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
duncan61 wrote:
Which measurement is more accurate: taking Earth's surface temperature from the ground or from space?
Since satellites technically measure neither temperature nor the surface (where people live), it's safe to say that ground thermometers are more accurate than satellite measurements.

Here's why:

Satellites measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere and then scientists work hard to convert that information to temperatures using computer models, which are simulations that help us better understand our planet's complexities, like a laboratory in a computer.
Scientists take brightness data from 16 different satellites. Imagine getting a box of puzzle pieces but with no reference picture to show you what the completed puzzle will look like. Experts deal with a similar challenge by taking information from all of those satellites that were launched in different decades since 1978 and figuring out how the pieces best fit together.
Satellites measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere at different altitudes. For example, the layer of air measured closest to where people live is at the altitude where birds and airplanes fly. Scientists take and blend various measurements up to a height of nearly 23,000 feet (about 7,000 meters).

I fail to see how anyone can believe this wank from NASA as usual I read making it up to fill in the gaps and governments are going to make policies based on this work of fiction


Probably satellites are more accurate. As an example of their accuracy, they can pretty much pinpoint the locations of maybe as many as billions of cell phones around the world in real time.


03-02-2021 22:06
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: I'm just saying there must be more than one formula to infer temperature.

Infer? That only works if someone is implying a temperature.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. You don't get to selectively dis-apply it under any scenario.

Every warmizombie with whom I have ever discussed Greenhouse Effect has had his argument suffer an immediate death upon running smack into Stefan-Boltzmann. At such point and time, all warmizombies struggle to selectively dis-apply Stefan-Boltzmann in a desperate flail to keep their religious dogma alive. The mental gymnastics become phenomenal at that point.

In the end, Stefan-Boltzmann remains standing because it is science and cannot be dis-applied, avoided, bypassed, or end-run.

.


Whoever puts Satellites into orbit must have a better formula, but I can't find it. I will have to take their word for it for now.



With satellites, they get a return off of gasses. It would probably depend on the satellite. This is because of mixing rates of gasses and their isotopes at different temperatures.
Can a radar detect what state (how excited) molecules are? If so, this would change the feedback. Just consider a Doppler weather radar. How does it infer cloud density or lack of? They also it seems detect temperatures as well. This could be based on the density of the atmosphere.
Satellites are highly advanced radars. And like radars, things in the atmosphere will reflect certain frequencies of E = hc/λ. It's this "return" and the time it takes to bounce back that could determine what a temperature in a region is.


Using Planck's constant you can figure out the Energy from frequency. Then knowing Energy, you can use the Boltzmann constant to figure out the equivalent Temperature of certain gases.



Edited on 03-02-2021 22:10
04-02-2021 00:26
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
The margin of error is the issue.I use my I phone to navigate to different addresses most days and it can be 100 feet out sometimes.It will say I have arrived and I wish to go to 49 and am at 41.It will tell me to do a U turn and I am in the carpark of where I wish to be.I have yet to see how a satellite can measure the energy of gasses.I have read several versions of how satellites claim to record surface temperature and its by measuring the UV light being reflected and comparing it to ground readings.A lot of problems with accuracy to declare certainty to 2 decimal places.You know the boys from politiplex are going to tear you a new one or are you deliberately baiting them?They have become the high school bullies on this site and seem to get off abusing posters for daring to share ideas
04-02-2021 03:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Spongy Iris has made these two assertions:

Assertion A:

Spongy Iris wrote:Probably satellites are more accurate. As an example of their accuracy, they can pretty much pinpoint the locations of maybe as many as billions of cell phones around the world in real time.



Assertion B:

Spongy Iris wrote:Using Planck's constant you can figure out the Energy from frequency. Then knowing Energy, you can use the Boltzmann constant to figure out the equivalent Temperature of certain gases.


To what extent is he correct?

For consideration:

In A) are there any satellites in orbit right now that are pin-pointing cell phones around the globe? Can this even be done from a satellite in orbit?

In B) can a constant "calculate" anything? Can a temperature be computed given an amount of energy?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 04:04
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris has made these two assertions:

Assertion A:

Spongy Iris wrote:Probably satellites are more accurate. As an example of their accuracy, they can pretty much pinpoint the locations of maybe as many as billions of cell phones around the world in real time.



Assertion B:

Spongy Iris wrote:Using Planck's constant you can figure out the Energy from frequency. Then knowing Energy, you can use the Boltzmann constant to figure out the equivalent Temperature of certain gases.


To what extent is he correct?

For consideration:

In A) are there any satellites in orbit right now that are pin-pointing cell phones around the globe? Can this even be done from a satellite in orbit?

In
can a constant "calculate" anything? Can a temperature be computed given an amount of energy?


.


First...

GPS is a system. It's made up of three parts: satellites, ground stations, and receivers.

Satellites act like the stars in constellations—we know where they are supposed to be at any given time.

The ground stations use radar to make sure they are actually where we think they are.

A receiver, like you might find in your phone or in your parents car, is constantly listening for a signal from these satellites. The receiver figures out how far away they are from some of them.

Once the receiver calculates its distance from four or more satellites, it knows exactly where you are. Presto! From miles up in space your location on the ground can be determined with incredible precision! They can usually determine where you are within a few yards of your actual location.

***

Second, in regards to that temperature inference...

Energy = (Planck's Constant × Speed of Light) ÷ (Frequency)

Then...

Temperature = Energy ÷ Boltzmann Constant


04-02-2021 07:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites act like the stars in constellations—we know where they are supposed to be at any given time.

You just conflated satellites with "we." You might not have noticed but we are not satellites.

We might know where we suppose a satellite to be, but no satellite knows exactly where it is.

Spongy Iris wrote: The ground stations use radar to make sure they are actually where we think they are.

Ground stations are powerless to "make sure" any satellite moves to where "we" suppose it to be.

Spongy Iris wrote: The receiver figures out how far away they are from some of them.

Only because of triangulation from the GPS constellation specifically but there are no "cell phone-locating satellites" pin-pointing cell phones, much less billions of them around the globe. Yes, any given cell phone can compute its own location based on GPS signals but that's the cell phone computing its own location.

Just so you know, GPS satellites don't provide position information. GPS is a complex timing system in the form of a satellite constellation. Each satellite has one job ... to broadcast the message "I am RIGHT NOW" in the form of a satellite ID and a time stamp. Receivers triangulate their location based on the time difference in the received signals.

Now here's the kicker. That theory of Relativity that you deny explains why we have error instead of perfect positioning. Satellites in orbit are in different inertial frames of reference RELATIVE to all positions on the ground or ocean surface, and once a satellite is in orbit, there is no way to synchronize its clock with any clocks on the ground or ocean surface. Temporal error in the satellite's clock translates into error in its broadcast timestamp which translates into positional error as computed by the receiver. Depending on the angle of the signal (actual position of the satellite) one millisecond of clock error can translate into a kilometer of positional error.

Those pesky inertial frames of reference ... geesh ... all because the speed of light is the same for all observers. I hate when that happens.

Spongy Iris wrote:Second, in regards to that temperature inference... Energy = (Planck's Constant × Speed of Light) ÷ (Frequency)

Then...

Temperature = Energy ÷ Boltzmann Constant

Nope. Checks your units of measure.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 07:26
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites act like the stars in constellations—we know where they are supposed to be at any given time.

You just conflated satellites with "we." You might not have noticed but we are not satellites.

We might know where we suppose a satellite to be, but no satellite knows exactly where it is.

Spongy Iris wrote: The ground stations use radar to make sure they are actually where we think they are.

Ground stations are powerless to "make sure" any satellite moves to where "we" suppose it to be.

Spongy Iris wrote: The receiver figures out how far away they are from some of them.

Only because of triangulation from the GPS constellation specifically but there are no "cell phone-locating satellites" pin-pointing cell phones, much less billions of them around the globe. Yes, any given cell phone can compute its own location based on GPS signals but that's the cell phone computing its own location.

Just so you know, GPS satellites don't provide position information. GPS is a complex timing system in the form of a satellite constellation. Each satellite has one job ... to broadcast the message "I am RIGHT NOW" in the form of a satellite ID and a time stamp. Receivers triangulate their location based on the time difference in the received signals.

Now here's the kicker. That theory of Relativity that you deny explains why we have error instead of perfect positioning. Satellites in orbit are in different inertial frames of reference RELATIVE to all positions on the ground or ocean surface, and once a satellite is in orbit, there is no way to synchronize its clock with any clocks on the ground or ocean surface. Temporal error in the satellite's clock translates into error in its broadcast timestamp which translates into positional error as computed by the receiver. Depending on the angle of the signal (actual position of the satellite) one millisecond of clock error can translate into a kilometer of positional error.

Those pesky inertial frames of reference ... geesh ... all because the speed of light is the same for all observers. I hate when that happens.

Spongy Iris wrote:Second, in regards to that temperature inference... Energy = (Planck's Constant × Speed of Light) ÷ (Frequency)

Then...

Temperature = Energy ÷ Boltzmann Constant

Nope. Checks your units of measure.

.


You're nit picking. The point is, from frequency, temperature can be inferred.


04-02-2021 07:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Spongy Iris wrote: You're nit picking. The point is, from frequency, temperature can be inferred.

OK, if it'll make you happy, I'll just say that what you wrote was absurd.

Try writing something that is not zany-stupid.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 07:56
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
duncan61 wrote:
The margin of error is the issue.I use my I phone to navigate to different addresses most days and it can be 100 feet out sometimes.It will say I have arrived and I wish to go to 49 and am at 41.It will tell me to do a U turn and I am in the carpark of where I wish to be.I have yet to see how a satellite can measure the energy of gasses.I have read several versions of how satellites claim to record surface temperature and its by measuring the UV light being reflected and comparing it to ground readings.A lot of problems with accuracy to declare certainty to 2 decimal places.You know the boys from politiplex are going to tear you a new one or are you deliberately baiting them?They have become the high school bullies on this site and seem to get off abusing posters for daring to share ideas



One day I went to rent a van because I bought some furniture. When I checked my phone, it had my location within 1 meter. And it let me know how far I was from my destination.
Being inside of your car might've interfered with your phone's signal. Also, where you near 3 cell towers? That's how position is triangulated. This is where if a phone is looking for a satellite than that's a satphone which doesn't use cell towers.
And with arrays used for phones, they might be on the side of a building. This allows for more locations and better signal strength. That's why a cellphone will ping different cell towers, find the best signal.
Attached image:

04-02-2021 09:34
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
They are actually called global positioning satellites and I am sure the US military put them up to help soldiers navigate in the field.The GPS satellites are also used to recognise the grace program positions and terra and aqua programs which I believe have expired.A cell phone tower would only be good for 30 miles or so simply because the Earth is round.

1973
The GPS project was launched in the United States in 1973 to overcome the limitations of previous navigation systems, integrating ideas from several predecessors, including classified engineering design studies from the 1960s. The U.S. Department of Defense developed the system, which originally used 24 satellites.

I knew this as I was involved in operation Skippy in 1985 and the US GIs had hand held GPS and our elite SAS still were using a prismatic compass and a ground map
04-02-2021 11:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote: They are actually called global positioning satellites

They are all called "NAVSTAR" followed by their particular designators.

duncan61 wrote: The margin of error is the issue.I use my I phone to navigate to different addresses most days and it can be 100 feet out sometimes.

The primary determinant of accuracy is the number of satellites within line of sight and that are functioning normally at the given moment and it is purely coincidental.

The next significant factor is the current clock error of each satellite at the given moment.



James___ wrote: Being inside of your car might've interfered with your phone's signal.

Anything that hinders reception hampers accuracy.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 14:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
Which measurement is more accurate: taking Earth's surface temperature from the ground or from space?

It is not possible to measure an absolute temperature from space.
duncan61 wrote:
Since satellites technically measure neither temperature nor the surface (where people live), it's safe to say that ground thermometers are more accurate than satellite measurements.

Here's why:

Satellites measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere and then scientists work hard to convert that information to temperatures using computer models, which are simulations that help us better understand our planet's complexities, like a laboratory in a computer.
Scientists take brightness data from 16 different satellites. Imagine getting a box of puzzle pieces but with no reference picture to show you what the completed puzzle will look like. Experts deal with a similar challenge by taking information from all of those satellites that were launched in different decades since 1978 and figuring out how the pieces best fit together.
Satellites measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere at different altitudes. For example, the layer of air measured closest to where people live is at the altitude where birds and airplanes fly. Scientists take and blend various measurements up to a height of nearly 23,000 feet (about 7,000 meters).

The light from Earth could be reflection, refraction, due to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, or due to harmonic emission. Only one of these is due to the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
I fail to see how anyone can believe this wank from NASA as usual I read making it up to fill in the gaps and governments are going to make policies based on this work of fiction

Pretty normal for governments.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
04-02-2021 14:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Spongy Iris wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Which measurement is more accurate: taking Earth's surface temperature from the ground or from space?
Since satellites technically measure neither temperature nor the surface (where people live), it's safe to say that ground thermometers are more accurate than satellite measurements.

Here's why:

Satellites measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere and then scientists work hard to convert that information to temperatures using computer models, which are simulations that help us better understand our planet's complexities, like a laboratory in a computer.
Scientists take brightness data from 16 different satellites. Imagine getting a box of puzzle pieces but with no reference picture to show you what the completed puzzle will look like. Experts deal with a similar challenge by taking information from all of those satellites that were launched in different decades since 1978 and figuring out how the pieces best fit together.
Satellites measure the brightness of Earth's atmosphere at different altitudes. For example, the layer of air measured closest to where people live is at the altitude where birds and airplanes fly. Scientists take and blend various measurements up to a height of nearly 23,000 feet (about 7,000 meters).

I fail to see how anyone can believe this wank from NASA as usual I read making it up to fill in the gaps and governments are going to make policies based on this work of fiction


Probably satellites are more accurate.

Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. They cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Spongy Iris wrote:
As an example of their accuracy, they can pretty much pinpoint the locations of maybe as many as billions of cell phones around the world in real time.

Satellites don't pinpoint locations of anything. GPS satellites transmit an accurate time signal, an identifier, and a precise tone. That's it.

GPS receivers can use this information to indicate your location. Cell phones contain GPS receivers.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
04-02-2021 14:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Spongy Iris wrote:
With satellites, they get a return off of gasses.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. No satellite can measure an absolute temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It would probably depend on the satellite.

NO satellite can measure an absolute temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This is because of mixing rates of gasses and their isotopes at different temperatures.

Irrelevant.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Can a radar detect what state (how excited) molecules are?

No. Probe interference.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If so, this would change the feedback.

There is no feedback in radar.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Just consider a Doppler weather radar. How does it infer cloud density or lack of?

By intensity of return.
Spongy Iris wrote:
They also it seems detect temperatures as well.

Nope. Radar cannot detect temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This could be based on the density of the atmosphere.

Nope. Density is not temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Satellites are highly advanced radars.

Satellites are simply spacecraft. They can have any instrumentation on board.
Spongy Iris wrote:
And like radars, things in the atmosphere will reflect certain frequencies of E = hc/λ.

Denial of Planck's law. Frequencies are not a reflection.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It's this "return" and the time it takes to bounce back that could determine what a temperature in a region is.

The speed of light is not a temperature.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Using Planck's constant you can figure out the Energy from frequency.

Denial of Planck's law. This applies only to photons, not gasses. Planck's constant is not Planck's law.
Then knowing Energy, you can use the Boltzmann constant to figure out the equivalent Temperature of certain gases.
[/quote]
Unit failure. Boltzmann's constant is not the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
04-02-2021 14:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
The margin of error is the issue.I use my I phone to navigate to different addresses most days and it can be 100 feet out sometimes.It will say I have arrived and I wish to go to 49 and am at 41.It will tell me to do a U turn and I am in the carpark of where I wish to be.I have yet to see how a satellite can measure the energy of gasses.I have read several versions of how satellites claim to record surface temperature and its by measuring the UV light being reflected and comparing it to ground readings.A lot of problems with accuracy to declare certainty to 2 decimal places.You know the boys from politiplex are going to tear you a new one or are you deliberately baiting them?They have become the high school bullies on this site and seem to get off abusing posters for daring to share ideas

Measuring UV light does not determine temperature of anything. Light is not temperature.
Commonly available GPS receivers are accurate to within 100 feet of accuracy horizontal distance. Military and aircraft version can achieve an accuracy to within 30 feet horizontal distance. Vertical accuracy is within 200 feet of altitude for aircraft, not good enough for instrument flight on that reference alone.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
04-02-2021 14:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote: Satellites act like the stars in constellations—we know where they are supposed to be at any given time.

You just conflated satellites with "we." You might not have noticed but we are not satellites.

We might know where we suppose a satellite to be, but no satellite knows exactly where it is.

Spongy Iris wrote: The ground stations use radar to make sure they are actually where we think they are.

Ground stations are powerless to "make sure" any satellite moves to where "we" suppose it to be.

Spongy Iris wrote: The receiver figures out how far away they are from some of them.

Only because of triangulation from the GPS constellation specifically but there are no "cell phone-locating satellites" pin-pointing cell phones, much less billions of them around the globe. Yes, any given cell phone can compute its own location based on GPS signals but that's the cell phone computing its own location.

Just so you know, GPS satellites don't provide position information. GPS is a complex timing system in the form of a satellite constellation. Each satellite has one job ... to broadcast the message "I am RIGHT NOW" in the form of a satellite ID and a time stamp. Receivers triangulate their location based on the time difference in the received signals.

Now here's the kicker. That theory of Relativity that you deny explains why we have error instead of perfect positioning. Satellites in orbit are in different inertial frames of reference RELATIVE to all positions on the ground or ocean surface, and once a satellite is in orbit, there is no way to synchronize its clock with any clocks on the ground or ocean surface. Temporal error in the satellite's clock translates into error in its broadcast timestamp which translates into positional error as computed by the receiver. Depending on the angle of the signal (actual position of the satellite) one millisecond of clock error can translate into a kilometer of positional error.

Those pesky inertial frames of reference ... geesh ... all because the speed of light is the same for all observers. I hate when that happens.

Spongy Iris wrote:Second, in regards to that temperature inference... Energy = (Planck's Constant × Speed of Light) ÷ (Frequency)

Then...

Temperature = Energy ÷ Boltzmann Constant

Nope. Checks your units of measure.

.


You're nit picking. The point is, from frequency, temperature can be inferred.

Not possible.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
04-02-2021 14:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
They are actually called global positioning satellites and I am sure the US military put them up to help soldiers navigate in the field.The GPS satellites are also used to recognise the grace program positions and terra and aqua programs which I believe have expired.A cell phone tower would only be good for 30 miles or so simply because the Earth is round.

While cell phone uses line of sight frequencies, the reason for the limitation has more to do with power output of the cell tower, and any other cell towers nearby. You phone always tries to log into the strongest signal, whether that cell tower is 30 miles away, or one right across the street. Different towers have different power outputs as well. Long range towers can reach a good 30 miles, if the tower is on a mountain top. They also transmit at a higher power.
Note: line of sight propagation is not absolute. These frequencies do actually follow the curve of the Earth a bit. Hills can block signals (similar to being in the 'shade' from the tower), or present reflections (similar to the way the sun has set, but the tops of mountains around you are still lit by the Sun (the Sun hasn't set for an observer at the top of that mountain). These mountains can keep valleys below somewhat lit by their reflected light.

duncan61 wrote:
1973
The GPS project was launched in the United States in 1973 to overcome the limitations of previous navigation systems, integrating ideas from several predecessors, including classified engineering design studies from the 1960s. The U.S. Department of Defense developed the system, which originally used 24 satellites.

Actually, it doesn't overcome any navigation system. Other navigation systems are still in use, including omnidirectional range transmitters (in HF, VHF, and UHF bands), Precisely aimed beacons using directional antennas (such as an ILS system), 'dogbone' pattern radio systems to mark precise points, and any AM or FM station can still be used for direction finding equipment (DF or ADF). There is also still distance measuring equipment in use (DME). ALL of these are ground based systems.
While GPS is accurate to within 30 feet horizontal, it is only accurate to within 200 feet vertical. That's not good enough for any kind of precision approach to an airport. Localizers and glideslope transmitters are used instead. They are accurate to within 10 feet by the time you reach the runway. It is even possible to land in zero visibility conditions with such a system. I've done it myself once.
duncan61 wrote:
I knew this as I was involved in operation Skippy in 1985 and the US GIs had hand held GPS and our elite SAS still were using a prismatic compass and a ground map

Compasses still work. Their big advantage is that they do not require power or batteries. They can also be made quite compact. The alignment mirror can also be used to signal people.

Good maps are critical to any navigation system. Use good maps that are current and designed for the purpose of your navigating, whether it's cross country hiking, driving a car or truck, marine charts, or aviation maps (either VFR or IFR, and for the altitudes you fly at).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
04-02-2021 17:53
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(585)
Nothing is absolutely known. If you argue against every point because it is not absolutely known, then you are arguing nothing is known.


04-02-2021 19:21
keepit
★★★★★
(2235)
ITN,
Was landing in zero zero a violation? Did you turn yourself in? I landed zero zero once too, at night. Much easier at night.
05-02-2021 00:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Nothing is absolutely known. If you argue against every point because it is not absolutely known, then you are arguing nothing is known.

Extreme argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
05-02-2021 00:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Was landing in zero zero a violation?

No.
keepit wrote:
Did you turn yourself in?

Why?
keepit wrote:
I landed zero zero once too, at night. Much easier at night.

I don't believe you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
05-02-2021 00:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote: ITN, Was landing in zero zero a violation?
No.
keepit wrote:
Did you turn yourself in?
Why?


If you can't do the time, don't do the crime

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate 2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
It Has Started - Bad News for Bernie522-03-2019 04:54
Climate change putting entire North Atlantic ecosystem at risk, says oceans conference organizer118-03-2019 19:57
Climate Change Is Driving Marine Species North, Changing California's Coast514-03-2019 03:47
IPCC and Climate Alarm - How It Started3517-02-2017 22:53
It's Going to Be the Warmest Christmas at the North Pole Ever628-12-2016 18:53
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact