Earth surface temperature measurements

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Earth surface temperature measurements

Page 1 of 3

Earth surface temperature measurements10-09-2019 18:01
Third world guy ★☆☆☆☆ (88)	Does anyone have information on the number of weather stations on Earth's surface, on land, in water, on ice, anywhere? Is its distribution known? About satellite temperature measurement, are there problems that can affect its credibility? There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
10-09-2019 18:29
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Third world guy wrote: Does anyone have information on the number of weather stations on Earth's surface, on land, in water, on ice, anywhere? I don't have any links handy, but I think NASA makes use of some 7,500-ish stations. Other sources, such as NOAA, might make use of a few more or a few less. Someone who has actually looked into that stuff could tell you better than I. What I can say, however, is that there aren't near enough stations in order to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth's surface. Upwards of 200 million stations would be necessary, since temperature has such a high per mile variance. Third world guy wrote: Is its distribution known? They are not uniformly spaced, nor are they simultaneously read by the same observer. This means that there are location and time biases. Third world guy wrote: About satellite temperature measurement, are there problems that can affect its credibility? Satellites can't measure Earth's temperature either. We would first need to know the emissivity of Earth, and in order to know that, we would need to already know the temperature of Earth. Edited on 10-09-2019 18:31
11-09-2019 13:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Third world guy wrote:...are there problems that can affect its credibility? I was pretty dismissive of claims that the measurements could be off but I was wrong (I think). See here: (older thread) tmiddles wrote: Dr Patrick Frank of Stanford He is qualified in the area with the skills needed Article mentioning him temp measurements innacurrate Him speaking for himself: pod cast youtube "Temperature readings, he finds, have errors over twice as large as generally recognized." tmiddles wrote: uncertainty of 1σ = ±0.5°C in the global average of surface air temperatures prior to 1980, descending to about ±0.36°C by 2010 with the gradual introduction of modern instrumentation. At the 95% confidence interval, the rate or magnitude of the global rise in surface air temperature since 1850 is unknowable. We know we can't know exactly, down to 0.000001C but he's saying it's pretty bad. Our measurement of temperature for the planet could be off by 0.36C today so anyone claiming that the temperature went up by 0.01C since last year if full of it. It does not mean we don't know that the temp has gone up, it's about claims to know precisely to the 1/10th of a degree year to year. The question is about how precise you can be. I think I never have seen an honest headline about this type of thing which would say: "Scientist estimate temperatures have risen between 0.2 and 0.9 C in the last 300 years", it's always misleading in it's precision because they just pick a number "Temperatures go up by 0.45 degrees in the last x years". In what I'd linked to he critiques the climate modeling into the future. The "If CO2 gets to this level the weather will do this" stuff. It undercuts even asking about the impact of CO2 because we just can't model weather into the future accurately enough to say. Again that's a computer simulation of weather. No one really doubts the ability to know the weather in the past tense. It's how precisely can we make comparisons year to year. The point is that there is well founded support out there for a critique of Climate Change Mania. It's totally missing from this board. It's a real shame. Dr. Pat sums up his talk by saying that basically there is no scientific credibility to the computer modeling that tells us humans have influenced the temperature so far. He does not question that we know what the weather has been recently. I'd really recommend watching that video of him. I'm going to watch more.
11-09-2019 18:41
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Mostly, the IPCC is pulling data off their models, and claiming actual data, and don't clearly state it as virtual data. +/-0.36 C is a huge margin, when you compare it to the 1 C average warming per 100 years You found a source you consider credible, that backs up what has been said here many times. I don't go digging for such things, there are fanatics on both sides of the debate, equally wrong in their desperation. I do go looking for specific things, I want to know more about, which usually get stalled by the search engine bias. Google definitely ranks pro-warming highest, and getting too smart about it. I get lucky occasionally, but it's time consuming and draining. We know the weather, as it's happening, or after, but the forecast models don't always work. Hurricane Dorian, didn't do as the models predicted, it was day-to-day, and see what happens next. The models barely gave any indication of what to expect for the next day, just what we already guessed the storm would be do. The climate models are much more complex, with a lot more potential to go wrong, than the hurricane models. The results should be taken for what they are, and not the gospel truth. They aren't really anything more than playing a 'what if...' video game, but take the results as real, and not a virtual speculation.
11-09-2019 22:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Third world guy wrote: Does anyone have information on the number of weather stations on Earth's surface, on land, in water, on ice, anywhere? NASA says they use about 7500 stations. NOAA uses a smaller number, about 7000 stations. The actual number of stations is somewhat unknown. Some are privately run, some are run by governments, some of those governments have failed and are replaced by some other government that no longer operates a station, etc. Third world guy wrote: Is its distribution known? Thermometers require maintenance. They means they are in cities and on roads. Most are in or near cities. There is also a network of buoys at sea that contain thermometers. These must be checked and maintained by ships, so these tend to be near the shipping lanes. It's a big ocean out there. There are few buoys in Arctic seas, since the ice would destroy them. There are very few thermometers on ice. In Antarctica, for example, a continent that is larger than the United States, thermometers exist only at a dozen or so research stations. There are also occasional weather balloons sent up that contain thermometers, but these are not measuring the surface temperatures and are not a continuous measurement. Aircraft also contain thermometers, so we can get a reasonably good picture of various temperatures in the tropopause, though we can't get a usable average temperature of it. Third world guy wrote: About satellite temperature measurement, are there problems that can affect its credibility? Yes. Satellites can only measure light. They are not in contact with the Earth. You can use to the Stefan-Boltzmann law to relate temperature and light, but the emissivity of Earth is unknown. The only way to measure the emissivity of a surface is to accurately know it's temperature first. This renders a satellite incapable of measuring an absolute temperature. It can only measure relative temperatures (comparing two regions for differences). Such satellites are very good at locating the Gulf Stream current, for example, but cannot tell you the temperature of it at any point. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 11-09-2019 22:04

11-09-2019 22:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Third world guy wrote:...are there problems that can affect its credibility? I was pretty dismissive of claims that the measurements could be off but I was wrong (I think). See here: (older thread) tmiddles wrote: Dr Patrick Frank of Stanford He is qualified in the area with the skills needed Article mentioning him temp measurements innacurrate Him speaking for himself: pod cast youtube "Temperature readings, he finds, have errors over twice as large as generally recognized." tmiddles wrote: uncertainty of 1σ = ±0.5°C in the global average of surface air temperatures prior to 1980, descending to about ±0.36°C by 2010 with the gradual introduction of modern instrumentation. At the 95% confidence interval, the rate or magnitude of the global rise in surface air temperature since 1850 is unknowable. We know we can't know exactly, down to 0.000001C but he's saying it's pretty bad. Our measurement of temperature for the planet could be off by 0.36C today so anyone claiming that the temperature went up by 0.01C since last year if full of it. It does not mean we don't know that the temp has gone up, it's about claims to know precisely to the 1/10th of a degree year to year. The question is about how precise you can be. I think I never have seen an honest headline about this type of thing which would say: "Scientist estimate temperatures have risen between 0.2 and 0.9 C in the last 300 years", it's always misleading in it's precision because they just pick a number "Temperatures go up by 0.45 degrees in the last x years". In what I'd linked to he critiques the climate modeling into the future. The "If CO2 gets to this level the weather will do this" stuff. It undercuts even asking about the impact of CO2 because we just can't model weather into the future accurately enough to say. Again that's a computer simulation of weather. No one really doubts the ability to know the weather in the past tense. It's how precisely can we make comparisons year to year. The point is that there is well founded support out there for a critique of Climate Change Mania. It's totally missing from this board. It's a real shame. Dr. Pat sums up his talk by saying that basically there is no scientific credibility to the computer modeling that tells us humans have influenced the temperature so far. He does not question that we know what the weather has been recently. I'd really recommend watching that video of him. I'm going to watch more. No, he is making an argument from randU fallacy. He is also denying statistical mathematics. That alone disqualifies him. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-09-2019 02:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	HarveyH55 wrote: Mostly, the IPCC is pulling data off their models, and claiming actual data, and don't clearly state it as virtual data. +/-0.36 C is a huge margin, when you compare it to the 1 C average warming per 100 years Harvey, in a forum of ideas, words are all we have. On this topic the vast bulk of confusion can be completely eliminated by getting rid of the word "models" and instead using the correct term "computer programs." "What's the difference?" you ask. Nobody has any models. None exist. In fact, "Climate" isn't even formally (unambiguously) specified so no models can even be made. All that anyone has are computer programs that output the numbers they were programmed to output. If I pull a number out of my azz, say 52degF, and claim that it's the earth's average global temperature, you respond "shut up and go away." If, on the other hand, I write a computer program to output the value 52degF and tell you that my value came from a "climate model" then you accept my value as indisputable truth. There are no models. There are only computer programs that spit out what they are told to spit out. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
12-09-2019 03:19
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Mostly, the IPCC is pulling data off their models, and claiming actual data, and don't clearly state it as virtual data. +/-0.36 C is a huge margin, when you compare it to the 1 C average warming per 100 years Harvey, in a forum of ideas, words are all we have. On this topic the vast bulk of confusion can be completely eliminated by getting rid of the word "models" and instead using the correct term "computer programs." "What's the difference?" you ask. Nobody has any models. None exist. In fact, "Climate" isn't even formally (unambiguously) specified so no models can even be made. All that anyone has are computer programs that output the numbers they were programmed to output. If I pull a number out of my azz, say 52degF, and claim that it's the earth's average global temperature, you respond "shut up and go away." If, on the other hand, I write a computer program to output the value 52degF and tell you that my value came from a "climate model" then you accept my value as indisputable truth. There are no models. There are only computer programs that spit out what they are told to spit out. . I know what you mean, but I prefer not to generalizes. 'Computer programs' is way to general for me, I work with a lot of different kinds. Computer models are a more specific type, although still a little generalized. I started 3D printing last spring, and there are thousands of computer models on the internet to download and print. There are also a lot of computer programs, that are used to design/alter those computer models. Haven't found one that works well on my old computer, most are too big to download. The few I've gotten, don't work so well. One looked promising, until I found some of the more useful functions are crippled, and have to pay. I'd pay, but I want to produce something I can print first. Then there is electronics... There are computer models of parts, which can be used to when routing PCB artwork, or simulating a circuit. There are many other examples, those are just two I work with. Never tried, but my drone came with a flight simulator, and suppose to work with other models, which can be downloaded. I already knew how to fly, so never bothered to install it. Anyway, it's all just words, I've learned a lot. keep learning more. Some aren't used correctly, some are just plain wrong, but I learn to adapt. Communication isn't always technically correct, I try to pick the woulds most commonly recognized to describe the thought. When you get overly literal, or general, it's difficult to get the idea across. It sort of like going to a foreign country, which you aren't exactly fluent in the local language, good enough to get by. Most of the locals don't do any better with English. Which language do you think would be your best choice to communicate with. I'd go with the local language, the words I know, would be mostly functional, not conversational, but less likely to be misunderstood. I just try to speak in the version of English best suited to who I'm talking to. I don't agree with 'drone', since mine have few automated functions, most I don't trust enough to use. Some words are just the broadly accepted descriptive, whether somebody agrees or not, with the most literal definitions. 'Climate Change' doesn't literally mean anything, it's is the name of the church, or group, dedicated to screwing up the world. It also means anything to do with catastrophic warming, and little else. Should have just left it at global warming, still just a title, of no literal meaning or value.
12-09-2019 05:59
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Harvey, simply put, I believe that IBdaMann's point is that that a climate model is nothing more than a computer program, and a computer program is no more intelligent than the dude that programmed it. "Climate model" tends to suggest "intelligence" in the program. If I have this right I completely agree with IBdaMann. If not, well then I completely agree with what I just wrote.
12-09-2019 07:18
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	I have no doubts that the climate models, are advanced programs, and actually simulate, well something. The way they are used, and the value, is just entertainment, like a video game. It's not the programs, or the people who wrote them, it's the politics and the marketing department misusing them. Who knows, some people get wrapped up in their video games, and talk like they are almost real. I do understand the suggestion, I just can't fault the programmers, since they aren't likely to be climate scientists on the side. They program, and do it very well, but they are assigned the task, likely just parts of it. You can feed any program garbage, and the results will still be garbage coming out. It's not the program, or the programmer's fault, just not right to blame either.
12-09-2019 07:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	GasGuzzler wrote: Harvey, simply put, I believe that IBdaMann's point is that that a climate model is nothing more than a computer program, and a computer program is no more intelligent than the dude that programmed it. "Climate model" tends to suggest "intelligence" in the program. If I have this right I completely agree with IBdaMann. If not, well then I completely agree with what I just wrote. The problem, and I do mean problem, is the willingness to refer to a "model" as a type of computer program. A model is not a computer program. A model is implemented in a program. If there is no model, you can still have a computer program, but you are LYING if you call it a model. If you tell me that your "climate model" yielded certain results, I should be able to get your model from you, implement it in my own computer program in my own programming language and get the same results when I run it on my machine. If you himm and haww at the request for the model, I know something is wrong. I know that you don't have any model, that you just have a program that is merely designed to output specific desired values, i.e. predetermined. ... AND ... there are no "climate" models so you can always expect really lame excuses any time you decide to ask a warmizombie for the model he or she is referencing. Ask me how I know so much about this. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
12-09-2019 19:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: [quote]Third world guy wrote:...are there problems that can affect its credibility? I was pretty dismissive of claims that the measurements could be off but I was wrong (I think). See here: (older thread) .... No, he is making an argument from randU fallacy. He is also denying statistical mathematics. That alone disqualifies him. You clearly didn't review his work. Your criticism makes no sense. Try explaining what you mean or simply skipping the pointless fallacy roll call. Waste of space.
12-09-2019 19:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ...getting rid of the word "models" and instead using the correct term "computer programs." This is simply "spin" in the political sense. We can run climate models to generate present and past weather too so accuracy can be checked. It's hard for me to take you seriously IBD because in 5 years of posting on this board nothing can be known according to you. The meaning of an "Error" is poorly defined without an example that is without the error. In the case of Dr. Pat Frank's analysis he found the current models fail:another link Edited on 12-09-2019 19:33
12-09-2019 19:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	HarveyH55 wrote: I have no doubts that the climate models, are advanced programs, and actually simulate, well something. The way they are used, and the value, is just entertainment, like a video game. It's not the programs, or the people who wrote them, it's the politics and the marketing department misusing them. Who knows, some people get wrapped up in their video games, and talk like they are almost real. I do understand the suggestion, I just can't fault the programmers, since they aren't likely to be climate scientists on the side. They program, and do it very well, but they are assigned the task, likely just parts of it. You can feed any program garbage, and the results will still be garbage coming out. It's not the program, or the programmer's fault, just not right to blame either. The programmers ARE the climate 'scientists'. If they HAVE a team of programmers, they are directed and paid for by that same climate 'scientist'. It is right to blame both. Simulations are just that: simulations. There is no intelligence in a computer. It is no more 'intelligent' than your average washing machine timer. All simulations presuppose models acting in a certain way within the simulation. In a video game, for example, a user interface is designed to swing a sword, run and walk from place to place in a world constructed more or less to be 'realistic' looking, etc. Swords don't really react that way nor can they be used that way. A battle between to real Japanese swordsman, for example, typically lasts only a second or so, and one of them is dead. Sometimes both are dead. The characters themselves are only caricatures. They are modeled out of someone's head like a comic book hero. They are not real people. VR capturing systems allow them to move and react more realistically, but they are simulations, not real. They don't have to pee. They don't have to eat. They don't have to sleep. They don't have to worry about the weather unless the game programmer wants them to, and they can take hit after hit from a Katana sword and still remain standing and fighting. Flight simulators are just as bad. The aircraft and airports modeled in them do not actually fly that way. There is no actual wing. There is no actual air. It is completely a simulation of wings and air according to the understanding of the programmer. It isn't real. Electronics simulators are like any other video game. It simulates the parts and the circuit according to the understanding of the programmer. Real inductors, resistors, transistors, and chips do not actually act that way. The circuit itself may have unexpected behavior simply because of wires in them that are too near each other. It isn't real, and it isn't all that accurate a simulation. Weather simulations are the same way. The programmer designs a model for the weather, then runs the model in a computer. It is not real weather, and it doesn't behave at all like real weather. It behaves only according to the programmers' idea of how the weather would work. Editors like PCB editors are not simulators, they are editors. A character modeler is another kind of editor. You find these in packages like Blender. They do not simulate models, they edit them. In any computer program, the model is the noun, and the program is the verb. A program is not a model. It operates upon models you design for it. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-09-2019 19:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: [quote]Third world guy wrote:...are there problems that can affect its credibility? I was pretty dismissive of claims that the measurements could be off but I was wrong (I think). See here: (older thread) .... No, he is making an argument from randU fallacy. He is also denying statistical mathematics. That alone disqualifies him. You clearly didn't review his work. Your criticism makes no sense. Try explaining what you mean or simply skipping the pointless fallacy roll call. Waste of space. I did. He is making an argument from randU fallacy and is also denying statistical mathematics. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

12-09-2019 19:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...getting rid of the word "models" and instead using the correct term "computer programs." This is simply "spin" in the political sense. Nope. It's the way a computer program does what it does. tmiddles wrote: We can run climate models to generate present and past weather too so accuracy can be checked. Nope. That's like using a crystal ball to predict what's already happened. tmiddles wrote: It's hard for me to take you seriously IBD because in 5 years of posting on this board nothing can be known according to you. Lie. tmiddles wrote: The meaning of an "Error" is poorly defined without an example that is without the error. Okay then. since you undefined 'error', define it. I don't bother with the Liberal language. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-09-2019 19:35
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: He is making an argument from randU fallacy How is he doing that? The point of his paper is that the error rates make any prediction within a huge margin of error. How is that Randy or whatever you're saying (not clear at all)?
12-09-2019 21:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: He is making an argument from randU fallacy How is he doing that? The point of his paper is that the error rates make any prediction within a huge margin of error. How is that Randy or whatever you're saying (not clear at all)? Statistical math is incapable of prediction. He is denying statistical math. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-09-2019 23:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Statistical math is incapable of prediction. He is denying statistical math. Ok you're making even less sense. I know your slogan on here is nothing can be known and nothing can be done. He is primarily analyzing the past temperature "record". How is that prediction?
12-09-2019 23:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Into the Night wrote: Statistical math is incapable of prediction. Correct. It gives us probabilities and margins of error. tmiddles wrote:Ok you're making even less sense. The problem is on your end. You need to learn statistics. tmiddles wrote:I know your slogan on here is nothing can be known and nothing can be done. You are still brazenly misrepresenting the positions of others. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
13-09-2019 00:31
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: You need to learn statistics. . Did you learn statistics? From a textbook?
13-09-2019 03:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Statistical math is incapable of prediction. He is denying statistical math. Ok you're making even less sense. I know your slogan on here is nothing can be known and nothing can be done. He is primarily analyzing the past temperature "record". How is that prediction? Did you forget what you were talking about THAT fast??!? 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-09-2019 03:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Did you forget what you were talking about THAT fast??!? Not at all. ITN Did you learn statistics? From a textbook?
13-09-2019 05:46
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Into the Night wrote: Weather simulations are the same way. The programmer designs a model for the weather, then runs the model in a computer. It is not real weather, and it doesn't behave at all like real weather. It behaves only according to the programmers' idea of how the weather would work. OK this caught my attention... I look at these "models''all the time....GFS, NAM, ECMWF, RAP and so on. I use them for general idea forecasts, and each model does seams to have its one thing it predicts with better accuracy than the others. However, no one model seams any too accurate over 2-3 days out. It seems as though meteorologists now days don't do much except for "going with the model consensus". Kind of reminds me of your description of pilots these day "not doing much actual flying anymore". It was my understanding that each model started with a programmers idea, but thereafter the model was searching it's own growing data base for like conditions to spit out a forecast. The idea being that the more time the model was in use the more accurate it would become because it would have a database of actual conditions and what followed. Have I bought the bullshit? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
13-09-2019 06:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: Weather simulations are the same way. The programmer designs a model for the weather, then runs the model in a computer. It is not real weather, and it doesn't behave at all like real weather. It behaves only according to the programmers' idea of how the weather would work. OK this caught my attention... I look at these "models''all the time....GFS, NAM, ECMWF, RAP and so on. I use them for general idea forecasts, and each model does seams to have its one thing it predicts with better accuracy than the others. However, no one model seams any too accurate over 2-3 days out. It seems as though meteorologists now days don't do much except for "going with the model consensus". Kind of reminds me of your description of pilots these day "not doing much actual flying anymore". It was my understanding that each model started with a programmers idea, but thereafter the model was searching it's own growing data base for like conditions to spit out a forecast. The idea being that the more time the model was in use the more accurate it would become because it would have a database of actual conditions and what followed. Have I bought the bullshit? To a degree, yes. Models do not become more accurate with time. All that happens is that they are doing the equivalent of prediction of past events, then forwarding that into the future. It's like gazing at a crystal ball, saying that you accurately predicted some past event, then claiming that because of that you are capable of predicting the future. Do you know how many so-called prophets are out there doing exactly the same thing? The only difference is that aren't using a computer to do it. Computers are dumb. They are simple sequencing machines. The instructions are nothing more than logic cycles to copy one register to another, copy a register to memory or from memory to a register, or shove a register into an output port or copy an input port to a register. That's all they know how to do. Layers upon layers bring that up from machine language to assembly language to compilers to interpreters and condensers such as Bash or Java, through all the libraries to do some wacky thing that's useful, to an application. The first purpose of a computer is not to compute data, but to send it. A computer without I/O is like a brain in a jar...useless. In the end, you can think of a computer as a telegraph device coupled with a pocket calculator and memory. At every layer, each program operates upon models designed by the programmer. Even when a CPU is designed, it is according to a model called the Register Model. It is what each register (a single word of memory) is labeled and where it can be copied to and from. Today, a modern CPU such as the Ryzen series processors from AMD contains not just the CPU, but many CPU's. One of them is designed to do math and is called the MPU. It is a sequencer just the same as the CPU is. Another is designed to do matrix math and provide fast access to it's memory, called the GPU. Again, it is just another sequencer. Each sequencer is designed to do it's own job very well. The CPU could do any of them, but not as efficiently as the MPU or GPU (Math Processing Unit and Graphics Processing Unit, respectively). Today, they are all on one chip, but they are still separate and distinct sequencers, each following the machine language and Register Model they are designed for. Each layer of software running on them is nothing more than another layer of models designed by programmers and programs to manipulate them. Layer upon layer upon layer....each layer like a floor in a Great Glass House. You can stand on any floor, and see layers near you, but others further away are dim and indistinct. Most people are only familiar with the top layers. What goes on much underneath where they work is magick black box stuff. And that's okay. Much the same thing happens with people that drive cars. They don't have to think about the 2nd set of planet gears in their transmission, how the teeth are cut, or how those gears are case hardened. They don't have to think about the induction system and any of it's many sensors, or how they work. They don't have to think about the marvelous design of a muffler that is tuned like a musical instrument, not to make noise but to silence it. All they have to think about is putting gas in the car and driving, and maybe changing the oil once in a while (often even that is hired out now!). All that stuff may make the machine seem like it's more than what it actually is. There is nothing about a computer that makes the model correct, or the program correct. A great example is an accounting system. It can take a good accounting system and make it great, or it can take a bad accounting system and make it horrible. It's like an ampllifier. It doesn't correct or bless anything. It takes what works on paper and makes it better, and takes what is guessing and makes it very fast guessing. Simulators are programs manipulating models designed by the programmer (including climate 'scientists'). Computers will take whatever screwy ideas he has for how the weather works and automate it like a video game. Past events do not make any simulation model more accurate. You may have bought the bullshit some, but you have recognized it! You are free of it now. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 13-09-2019 06:33
13-09-2019 16:46
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	Thanks for the explanation and I'll do my best to shake it off!
14-09-2019 02:13
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	gfm7175 wrote: ...What I can say, however, is that there aren't near enough stations in order to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth's surface. Upwards of 200 million stations would be necessary, since temperature has such a high per mile variance. The climate fellas don't need a value for the Earth's mean surface temperature at all. They need only know whether it's *changing, and if so, by how much. The IPCC reports temperature trends as "anomalies," deviations from some baseline, for this reason. What matters is that the data are collected and weighted in a consistent manner over time. We have a problem in this respect, since figures from 1850 or 1900 aren't strictly comparable to more recent ones, and a hefty dose of "massaging" is used to incorporate the older data into a time series extending back from present. Four major data sets are drawn from as basis for computing changes of temperature; these are summarized in the link below. Additional problems arise in reconciling these sets with one another. The statistical math involved is too complex to discuss on a forum; readers must review the references in IPCC's documents, if they have the background, or trust the authors otherwise. IPCC AR5 Supplementary Chapter 2SM; see pp. 13-17 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WGI_AR5.Chap_.2_SM-1.pdf gfm7175 wrote:...Satellites can't measure Earth's temperature either. We would first need to know the emissivity of Earth, and in order to know that, we would need to already know the temperature of Earth. Satellite radiation temperature measurement is quite sensitive to changes* which may be compared over the period the satellites have been aloft, circa 1975 forward, making them valuable even though their data may not mesh with thermometer readings taken at weather stations and limitations come from satellites' inability to measure ground temps in cloudy areas, or few of them being in orbit where they can see the poles. Like you, I'm a bit jaded on how climate change gets presented in popular media. Everything seems more cut-and-dried than I think it really is. Of late every storm or heat wave's being attributed to it. Yet the temp trend's definitely up and a *plausible physical mechanism* for human activity causing it stated. I'm old enough to remember Nixon's "Double-Nickel" speed limit and the way business as usual returned in the '80s when prices went back down. I dislike our reliance on fossil fuels in the face of associated risks that have multiplied over the years. If 'haps it takes a lifetime, "Junkie kick the habit" sounds wise. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 14-09-2019 02:33
14-09-2019 02:56
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	VernerHornung wrote: The climate fellas don't need a value for the Earth's mean surface temperature at all. They need only know whether it's changing, and if so, by how much. Dumb question here... How can you know how much it is changing without a known value? What you're saying is that it is possible to arrive at a known value using an unknown value. I call that plucking numbers out of your ass. Edited on 14-09-2019 03:03
14-09-2019 09:30
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: The climate fellas don't need a value for the Earth's mean surface temperature at all. They need only know whether it's changing, and if so, by how much. What you're saying is that it is possible to arrive at a known value using an unknown value. That's not what was being said. We can't have a temperature reading of every molecule of any object. If we want to measure a temperature change we can come close by comparing measurements from the same location. So if I have a block of steel sitting on a hot plate I can measure the top surface as the temp climbs. I don't know the mean temp exactly as the bottom, where it's conducting with the hot plate, certainly has a head start over to top surface. But I can measure a temp change. Just need to measure the same location each time.
14-09-2019 17:10
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: The climate fellas don't need a value for the Earth's mean surface temperature at all. They need only know whether it's changing, and if so, by how much. What you're saying is that it is possible to arrive at a known value using an unknown value. That's not what was being said. We can't have a temperature reading of every molecule of any object. If we want to measure a temperature change we can come close by comparing measurements from the same location. So if I have a block of steel sitting on a hot plate I can measure the top surface as the temp climbs. I don't know the mean temp exactly as the bottom, where it's conducting with the hot plate, certainly has a head start over to top surface. But I can measure a temp change. Just need to measure the same location each time. Are you saying we can know if the Earths mean surface temp is rising by looking at temp data from one location??? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan

14-09-2019 17:27
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote: Are you saying we can know if the Earths mean surface temp is rising by looking at temp data from one location??? "Know" is a matter of confidence and only ever approaches 100%. The more locations, more accurate instruments, all factor in. I'd be lying if I claimed I had a firm grasp on how those calculations are made. But again some uncertainty applies to everything, even a block of steel on a hot plate. So yes we can estimate changes in the "ground level" temperature average from a single location. Though a single location would likely only confirm large differences like an ice age. A single location confirms that Venus is much hotter at ground level than Mercury for example: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury where the temp difference is ~ 300 degrees! Edited on 14-09-2019 17:30
14-09-2019 18:16
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	GasGuzzler wrote: How can you know how much it is changing without a known value? What you're saying is that it is possible to arrive at a known value using an unknown value. Easy. Pretend it's January 26 of some winter. Nobody knows how many Americans actually have the flu that day because most victims never see a doctor. But CDC can tell whether flu is going up or down, by tracking hospital admissions and school absences, two variables that closely follow the flu. Changes in several known values *can* be used to infer changes in the value that's harder to measure directly. We have a fair idea of Earth's average temperature anyway, somewhere near 15˚C, not 300 or —30. The problem comes with defining it precisely, since temperatures of ground surface, water and air above all differ from one another and a thermometer reading is affected by the way it's conducted. (The NWS calls for a white wooden box of specified dimensions, with louvres for ventilation, six feet above the ground with the thermometer inside.) There are questions regarding how much of global warming is caused by nature versus human activity and whether the trend will continue into the 22nd century like all those charts show. But there's no doubt it's real, or that people and their gases have some effect on it. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
14-09-2019 18:22
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	tmiddles wrote: A single location confirms that Venus is much hotter at ground level than Mercury for example... Yup. And it cooked Venera 9 in less than an hour. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
14-09-2019 19:37
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	GasGuzzler wrote: How can you know how much it is changing without a known value? What you're saying is that it is possible to arrive at a known value using an unknown value. VernerHornung wrote:Easy. Pretend it's January 26 of some winter. Nobody knows how many Americans actually have the flu that day because most victims never see a doctor. But CDC can tell whether flu is going up or down, by tracking hospital admissions and school absences, two variables that closely follow the flu. Changes in several known values *can* be used to infer changes in the value that's harder to measure directly. It is still an unknown value, otherwise known as speculation. VernerHornung wrote:We have a fair idea of Earth's average temperature anyway, somewhere near 15˚C, not 300 or —30. The problem comes with defining it precisely, since temperatures of ground surface, water and air above all differ from one another and a thermometer reading is affected by the way it's conducted. (The NWS calls for a white wooden box of specified dimensions, with louvres for ventilation, six feet above the ground with the thermometer inside.) So we have a fair idea of the Earth's average surface temp...but we're being sold that it is rising at a precise amount. I call bullshit. VernerHornung wrote:There are questions regarding how much of global warming is caused by nature versus human activity We don't know if the temp is rising. Remember, we only have a fair idea of the global mean temp? VernerHornung wrote:and whether the trend will continue into the 22nd century like all those charts show. Those charts are nothing more than speculated numbers plucked out of someone's ass. VernerHornung wrote:But there's no doubt it's real, or that people and their gases have some effect on it. What's real is that there is no way to heat a warmer surface with a cooler gas. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 14-09-2019 19:42
14-09-2019 21:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	VernerHornung wrote: gfm7175 wrote: ...What I can say, however, is that there aren't near enough stations in order to accurately measure the temperature of the Earth's surface. Upwards of 200 million stations would be necessary, since temperature has such a high per mile variance. The climate fellas don't need a value for the Earth's mean surface temperature at all. They need only know whether it's *changing, and if so, by how much. That requires absolute measurements. VernerHornung wrote:* The IPCC reports temperature trends as "anomalies," deviations from some baseline, for this reason. What matters is that the data are collected and weighted in a consistent manner over time. No, that's called a base rate fallacy, and is a math error as well as a logic error, stemming from a false equivalence. VernerHornung wrote: We have a problem in this respect, since figures from 1850 or 1900 aren't strictly comparable to more recent ones, and a hefty dose of "massaging" is used to incorporate the older data into a time series extending back from present. You can't use cooked data in statistical math. Math error. Selection MUST be by randN, and the RAW data MUST be available for inspection. Further, statistics is not capable of prediction. VernerHornung wrote: Four major data sets are drawn from as basis for computing changes of temperature; these are summarized in the link below. Additional problems arise in reconciling these sets with one another. The statistical math involved is too complex to discuss on a forum; readers must review the references in IPCC's documents, if they have the background, or trust the authors otherwise. IPCC AR5 Supplementary Chapter 2SM; see pp. 13-17 https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WGI_AR5.Chap_.2_SM-1.pdf This is not a list of data sets at all. It is a paper describing a bunch of bogus claims and how they are cooking the data. VernerHornung wrote: [quote]gfm7175 wrote:...Satellites can't measure Earth's temperature either. We would first need to know the emissivity of Earth, and in order to know that, we would need to already know the temperature of Earth. Satellite radiation temperature measurement is quite sensitive to *changes* which may be compared over the period the satellites have been aloft, Base rate fallacy. Math error. Time interval bias introduced. No zero reference. VernerHornung wrote: circa 1975 forward, making them valuable Nope. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperatures, which are absolutely necessary to describe a trend of any kind. VernerHornung wrote: even though their data may not mesh with thermometer readings taken at weather stations Have a clue. VernerHornung wrote: and limitations come from satellites' inability to measure ground temps in cloudy areas, or few of them being in orbit where they can see the poles. Irrelevant. VernerHornung wrote: Like you, I'm a bit jaded on how climate change gets presented in popular media. Everything seems more cut-and-dried than I think it really is. Of late every storm or heat wave's being attributed to it. Got to fan the faith of the religious mob, you know. VernerHornung wrote: Yet the temp trend's definitely up It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. VernerHornung wrote: and a *plausible physical mechanism* for human activity causing it stated. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics) * You cannot trap heat. (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics) * You cannot trap light. (Planck's law) * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics) * You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot. You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas. (2nd law of thermodynamics) * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. (Stefan-Boltzmann law) It is not plausible. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted from the surface. VernerHornung wrote: I'm old enough to remember Nixon's "Double-Nickel" speed limit and the way business as usual returned in the '80s when prices went back down. Irrelevant, and a stupid unconstitutional law. Thanks, Nixon. VernerHornung wrote: I dislike our reliance on fossil fuels We don't use fossils for fuels. They don't burn. We use carbon based fuels instead. They are cheap, renewable, and put out water and carbon dioxide (both beneficial to plants) when burned. VernerHornung wrote: in the face of associated risks that have multiplied over the years. Void argument fallacy. Name them. Be specific. VernerHornung wrote: If 'haps it takes a lifetime, "Junkie kick the habit" sounds wise. ~ Fuels are not drugs. It's a bad idea to inject gasoline into your bloodstream. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2019 21:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: The climate fellas don't need a value for the Earth's mean surface temperature at all. They need only know whether it's changing, and if so, by how much. Dumb question here... How can you know how much it is changing without a known value? What you're saying is that it is possible to arrive at a known value using an unknown value. I call that plucking numbers out of your ass. That's exactly what it is. It's the equivalence of putting a ruler on a wall and making a mark at the six inch mark. What good is it? Six inches from where? 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2019 21:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote: The climate fellas don't need a value for the Earth's mean surface temperature at all. They need only know whether it's changing, and if so, by how much. What you're saying is that it is possible to arrive at a known value using an unknown value. That's not what was being said. We can't have a temperature reading of every molecule of any object. A single molecule has a temperature, so why not? This is really just an instrumentation problem. tmiddles wrote: If we want to measure a temperature change we can come close by comparing measurements from the same location. Which are absolute measurements. tmiddles wrote: So if I have a block of steel sitting on a hot plate I can measure the top surface as the temp climbs. Yup. You are making absolute measurements. tmiddles wrote: I don't know the mean temp exactly as the bottom, where it's conducting with the hot plate, certainly has a head start over to top surface. But I can measure a temp change. Just need to measure the same location each time. Yup. Using absolute measurements each time. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2019 21:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Are you saying we can know if the Earths mean surface temp is rising by looking at temp data from one location??? "Know" is a matter of confidence and only ever approaches 100%. The more locations, more accurate instruments, all factor in. Yup. That's what statistical mathematics does. You have to report the margin of error with any statistical summary. That comes from the possible variance, not the data itself. tmiddles wrote: I'd be lying if I claimed I had a firm grasp on how those calculations are made. Statistical mathematics. Yes, you have lied about this already. You have already claimed to know. tmiddles wrote: But again some uncertainty applies to everything, even a block of steel on a hot plate. You should know the difference between instrument tolerance and margin of error. tmiddles wrote: So yes we can estimate changes in the "ground level" temperature average from a single location. Though a single location would likely only confirm large differences like an ice age. No, it doesn't. tmiddles wrote: A single location confirms that Venus is much hotter at ground level than Mercury for example: venus-is-hotter-than-mercury where the temp difference is ~ 300 degrees! We do not know the temperature of either Mercury or Venus. Repetitious math error. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2019 21:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	VernerHornung wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: How can you know how much it is changing without a known value? What you're saying is that it is possible to arrive at a known value using an unknown value. Easy. Pretend it's January 26 of some winter. Nobody knows how many Americans actually have the flu that day because most victims never see a doctor. But CDC can tell whether flu is going up or down, by tracking hospital admissions and school absences, two variables that closely follow the flu. Changes in several known values *can* be used to infer changes in the value that's harder to measure directly. You are measuring two variables directly. Those are absolute values. You are also leaping to the conclusion that they have anything to do with flu infections. VernerHornung wrote: We have a fair idea of Earth's average temperature anyway, somewhere near 15˚C, not 300 or —30. Nope. No idea at all. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. VernerHornung wrote: The problem comes with defining it precisely, since temperatures of ground surface, water and air above all differ from one another and a thermometer reading is affected by the way it's conducted. (The NWS calls for a white wooden box of specified dimensions, with louvres for ventilation, six feet above the ground with the thermometer inside.) Not enough of them. VernerHornung wrote: There are questions regarding how much of global warming is caused by nature versus human activity Define 'global warming'. Buzzword fallacy. Warming from when to when? Why are those two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant? VernerHornung wrote: and whether the trend will continue into the 22nd century like all those charts show. Charts of random numbers is not a trend. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. VernerHornung wrote: But there's no doubt it's real, or that people and their gases have some effect on it. * You can't create energy out of nothing. * You can't trap heat. * You can't trap light. * You can't make heat flow from cold to hot. * You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. Sorry, you are denying science again, and you are denying mathematics again. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-09-2019 23:00
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	VernerHornung wrote:CDC can tell whether flu is going up or down, by tracking hospital admissions Great example. Even the relative size of the increase could be inferred without ever knowing what the total ever is. Flu cases doubling for example. VernerHornung wrote:Earth's average temperature anyway, somewhere near 15˚C, not 300 or —30. The problem comes with defining it precisely, "Precise" and "Accurate" are as meaningful as "High Quality" and "Sufficient". There is always a need behind the determination. For global warming it's challenging as the changes are small. For knowing that Venus is hotter than Mercury it's not. VernerHornung wrote: There are questions regarding how much of global warming is caused by nature...But there's no doubt it's real... Well said. When an argument for something being insignificant becomes an argument it doesn't exist it's too easily won. GasGuzzler wrote: VernerHornung wrote:Changes in several known values *can* be used to infer changes in the value that's harder to measure directly. It is still an unknown value, otherwise known as speculation. You say that as though "speculation" was a well defined category of research far from real science. Is that what you're implying? What's an example of some alternative to "speculation"? Isn't everything speculation? GasGuzzler wrote: So we have a fair idea of the Earth's average surface temp...but we're being sold that it is rising at a precise amount. I call bullshit. I completely agree with that statement. Sadly the credibility of what's presented is lost as there is never any presentation of a margin of error. GasGuzzler wrote: We don't know if the temp is rising. Remember, we only have a fair idea of the global mean temp? We have a fair idea it's increasing (and has been for thousands of years). GasGuzzler wrote: What's real is that there is no way to heat a warmer surface with a cooler gas. Into the Night wrote: ...You cannot warm the surface using a colder gas. (2nd law of thermodynamics) If you mean that the atmosphere cannot radiate and have the ground of Earth absorb it, you are dead wrong. See here: net-thermal-radiation and here: Max Planck schools you Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: I don't know the mean temp exactly ...Just need to measure the same location each time. Yup. Using absolute measurements each time. Into the Night wrote: We do not know the temperature of either Mercury or Venus. This scenario is fundamentally no different then measuring one point of the Earth and then calculating the total. One spot of the steel is just one spot and the rest of the blocks nature is assumed. Into the Night wrote: VernerHornung wrote: We have a fair idea of Earth's average temperature anyway, somewhere near 15˚C, not 300 or —30. Nope. No idea at all. Dead wrong as usual ITN. Do we know the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate we measure only one spot of? Your methodology of "It has to be 100% or it doesn't exist" is insane and would have prevented all scientific development and invalidates all research. It's why you have never said anything, on any subject was valid data or useable research. Your objective is to simply end discussion. You are a censor. What's more you have your own made up scientific laws you've never backed up which are contradicted entirely by Text books, commons sense, and the available research. Max Planck schools you

Page 1 of 3

Join the debate Earth surface temperature measurements:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Can we trust the satellite and surface-based temperature records?	1	23-04-2024 16:21
Present temperature spike July '23	31	27-09-2023 00:27
Surface temperature of earth according to Boltzmann law	56	10-05-2023 15:46
Greenhouse gases cool better and cause lower surface temperature of earth than non greenhouse gases	3	10-05-2023 08:27
Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise	71	24-08-2022 01:36