2021 Has Started With A Roar In The North Pacific

James___ wrote: What's being overlooked is what if the Earth is absorbing energy?

James___ wrote:[Earth] could be gaining mass.

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?


.

Swan 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.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:First commandment for AGW deniers. Thou shalt worship only the Stefan-Boltzmann inference formula, and no others!

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.

.

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!

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.

Spongy Iris wrote: I'm just saying there must be more than one formula to infer temperature.

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.

.

Spongy Iris wrote: Whoever puts Satellites into orbit must have a better formula, but I can't find it.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

James___ wrote:And as it slowly dies, you and IBDM begin to salivate little by little.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?


.

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

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

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

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

Then...

Temperature = Energy ÷ Boltzmann Constant

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.

.

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

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

duncan61 wrote: They are actually called global positioning satellites

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.

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

duncan61 wrote:
Which measurement is more accurate: taking Earth's surface temperature from the ground or 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).

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

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.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
With satellites, they get a return off of gasses.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It would probably depend on the satellite.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This is because of mixing rates of gasses and their isotopes at different temperatures.

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
If so, this would change the feedback.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Just consider a Doppler weather radar. How does it infer cloud density or lack of?

Spongy Iris wrote:
They also it seems detect temperatures as well.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This could be based on the density of the atmosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Satellites are highly advanced radars.

Spongy Iris wrote:
And like radars, things in the atmosphere will reflect certain frequencies of E = hc/λ.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Using Planck's constant you can figure out the Energy from frequency.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

keepit wrote:
ITN,
Was landing in zero zero a violation?

keepit wrote:
Did you turn yourself in?

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

Into the Night wrote:

keepit wrote: ITN, Was landing in zero zero a violation?

No.

keepit wrote:
Did you turn yourself in?

Why?