| Is Gore's theory CO2 causes warming false?07-01-2019 16:42 |
Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆
(1085) |
His chart shows CO2 causes warming so if CO2 is 55% more than 1850 level of 280 ppm then temperature goes up by 10 C which is fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
Edited on 07-01-2019 16:45 |
| 07-01-2019 17:53 |
still learning★★☆☆☆
(244) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
His chart shows CO2 causes warming so if CO2 is 55% more than 1850 level of 280 ppm then temperature goes up by 10 C which is fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
Where did you get the 10 C?
It was not on or in the video.
Not on the graph. The temperature line is not extended past the present day.
Not in Gore's words. He asked: "What will the temperature be?"
You came up with the 10 C. You jumped to a conclusion.
It's not "Gore's theory" either. |
| 07-01-2019 19:11 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
His chart shows CO2 causes warming so if CO2 is 55% more than 1850 level of 280 ppm then temperature goes up by 10 C which is fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
Instead watch this. Lord Moncton shows the math errors made by the IPCC and how the change in temperature will be barely measurable.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=An+Inconvenient+lie+Lord+Moncton&view=detail&mid=0AF37481465AD69EF7660AF37481465AD69EF766&FORM=VIRE |
| 07-01-2019 19:20 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21588) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
His chart shows CO2 causes warming so if CO2 is 55% more than 1850 level of 280 ppm then temperature goes up by 10 C which is fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
Since it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, any chart using iti is fake.
CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. Giving this Magick Holy Gas any capability of that sort violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and 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
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-01-2019 13:59 |
BreatheLess☆☆☆☆☆
(3) |
amsterdam.craigslist.org/hab/d/breatheless-the-easy-solution-to/6795323583.html |
|
| 16-01-2019 02:55 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
His chart shows CO2 causes warming so if CO2 is 55% more than 1850 level of 280 ppm then temperature goes up by 10 C which is fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
If the global annual temperature is 58.5 degrees F. or 14.7 degrees C., that's 287.9 degrees kelvin.
1 kelvin = 1 degree C. When the composition of atmospheric gases influences the global annual temperature, it needs to be relative to absolute 0. It warms our planet, right? If so then it's relationship would be relative to absolute 0.
Otherwise the claim would be that for the first 280 degrees kelvin, it's effect is minimal but above 280 degrees kelvin is quite pronounced. This would mean that co2's influence on our atmosphere is not a constant. Even if it went y = x + (x +1) it would be on a curve. This is a basic calculus expression which either Wake or ITN can graph for you. CO2's influence should be able to be graphed in a similar fashion. No scientist has yet to show a logarithm that accounts for CO2's influence on our atmosphere.
However, in the past scientists stated that deep ocean currents predicted global warming 10 years in advance. The IPCC is manipulating data. This is why before 1998 that all temperatures recorded by ships was acceptable. Nothing in science changes in 1 year like that. It's just not possible. |
| 16-01-2019 19:27 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
James___ wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
His chart shows CO2 causes warming so if CO2 is 55% more than 1850 level of 280 ppm then temperature goes up by 10 C which is fake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JIuKjaY3r4
If the global annual temperature is 58.5 degrees F. or 14.7 degrees C., that's 287.9 degrees kelvin.
1 kelvin = 1 degree C. When the composition of atmospheric gases influences the global annual temperature, it needs to be relative to absolute 0. It warms our planet, right? If so then it's relationship would be relative to absolute 0.
Otherwise the claim would be that for the first 280 degrees kelvin, it's effect is minimal but above 280 degrees kelvin is quite pronounced. This would mean that co2's influence on our atmosphere is not a constant. Even if it went y = x + (x +1) it would be on a curve. This is a basic calculus expression which either Wake or ITN can graph for you. CO2's influence should be able to be graphed in a similar fashion. No scientist has yet to show a logarithm that accounts for CO2's influence on our atmosphere.
However, in the past scientists stated that deep ocean currents predicted global warming 10 years in advance. The IPCC is manipulating data. This is why before 1998 that all temperatures recorded by ships was acceptable. Nothing in science changes in 1 year like that. It's just not possible.
y=x+(x+1) is neither calculus nor draws a curve.
The reason no scientist can draw a graph of CO2's influence on the atmosphere is because CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth using infrared light emitted by the Earth.
Deep ocean currents are cold ones. Warm ocean currents run on the surface. Warm water rises, just like warm air. They are not an indicator of any prediction of Earth's temperature.
The IPCC is not just manipulating data, they are making it up. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content.
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 |
| 16-01-2019 22:27 |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★
(5196) |
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality. |
| 20-01-2019 17:53 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
The Mean Global Temperature is quite easy to measure with the satellite system. The satellite measurements are now so refined that they can read temperatures almost to the square mile of surface area and the actual temperatures at specific altitudes.
The CO2 is not so easy but they are using a couple of spots on the globe and getting approximate levels. Remember - according to the silly CO2 theory, the precise amount isn't as important as the change. |
| 20-01-2019 20:08 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
The Mean Global Temperature is quite easy to measure with the satellite system. The satellite measurements are now so refined that they can read temperatures almost to the square mile of surface area and the actual temperatures at specific altitudes.
The CO2 is not so easy but they are using a couple of spots on the globe and getting approximate levels. Remember - according to the silly CO2 theory, the precise amount isn't as important as the change.
Does the satellites see through clouds, of various density, and know how to compensate? What about dust storms, volcanoes, wildfires? Seems like a lot of natural events could skew the readings pretty good. What about cities, industrial areas, pavement? Still just an estimate, approximation.
Odd weather event in Florida... It 64 F by my thermometer, and mot really cold, except when the wind kicks up. There's way more than a few degrees difference. The news station call it an 'artic blast', but then again they were warning us most of the week, about rain and severe storms, before the cold front. We got basically a light sprinkle, and still about 10 degrees warmer than predicted. Lastest, it's suppose to dip down to the low 30s F overnight... Guess I better dig out a light jacket... |
| 20-01-2019 20:40 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
The Mean Global Temperature is quite easy to measure with the satellite system.
Satellites are incapable of measuring the absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law (I already know you deny it).
Wake wrote:
The satellite measurements are now so refined that they can read temperatures almost to the square mile of surface area and the actual temperatures at specific altitudes.
Nope. They can't. Satellites can only measure relative temperature, not absolute temperature. Even the relative temperature is questionable, since emissivity varies so widely in as little as a few inches. Where they are most useful is in detecting things like where a warm current is located in the ocean, but they cannot measure the actual temperature of the water in that current.
Wake wrote:
The CO2 is not so easy but they are using a couple of spots on the globe and getting approximate levels.
Satellites are incapable of measuring CO2 content, Wake. They can only measure light.
Wake wrote:
Remember - according to the silly CO2 theory, the precise amount isn't as important as the change.
Irrelevant. CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth using light emitted from the surface.
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 |
| 20-01-2019 20:47 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
The Mean Global Temperature is quite easy to measure with the satellite system. The satellite measurements are now so refined that they can read temperatures almost to the square mile of surface area and the actual temperatures at specific altitudes.
The CO2 is not so easy but they are using a couple of spots on the globe and getting approximate levels. Remember - according to the silly CO2 theory, the precise amount isn't as important as the change.
Does the satellites see through clouds, of various density, and know how to compensate?
Depending on the frequency of light being measured, yes...a satellite can see through clouds. At infrared frequencies, clouds tend to appear opaque.
HarveyH55 wrote:
What about dust storms, volcanoes, wildfires? Seems like a lot of natural events could skew the readings pretty good. Localized heat sources can be seen (we use this information to help locate some of these events), but they are cast out as anomalies. These are relative concentrations of heat sources, easily seen by satellites depending on the weather.
HarveyH55 wrote:
What about cities, industrial areas, pavement? Still just an estimate, approximation.
The effect of a city, industrial area, or pavement is unknown.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Odd weather event in Florida... It 64 F by my thermometer, and mot really cold, except when the wind kicks up.
Wind chill is not a temperature. It's the effect YOU feel because you are warmer than the air. It's the effect of cooling efficiency that literally depends on the wind.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There's way more than a few degrees difference. The news station call it an 'artic blast', but then again they were warning us most of the week, about rain and severe storms, before the cold front. We got basically a light sprinkle, and still about 10 degrees warmer than predicted. Lastest, it's suppose to dip down to the low 30s F overnight... Guess I better dig out a light jacket...
Remnants of that storm we sent you from the West coast earlier. Sorry 'bout that. That thing has made a mess of most of the United States as it moved east.
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 |
| 20-01-2019 21:15 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
The Mean Global Temperature is quite easy to measure with the satellite system. The satellite measurements are now so refined that they can read temperatures almost to the square mile of surface area and the actual temperatures at specific altitudes.
The CO2 is not so easy but they are using a couple of spots on the globe and getting approximate levels. Remember - according to the silly CO2 theory, the precise amount isn't as important as the change.
Does the satellites see through clouds, of various density, and know how to compensate? What about dust storms, volcanoes, wildfires? Seems like a lot of natural events could skew the readings pretty good. What about cities, industrial areas, pavement? Still just an estimate, approximation.
Odd weather event in Florida... It 64 F by my thermometer, and mot really cold, except when the wind kicks up. There's way more than a few degrees difference. The news station call it an 'artic blast', but then again they were warning us most of the week, about rain and severe storms, before the cold front. We got basically a light sprinkle, and still about 10 degrees warmer than predicted. Latest, it's suppose to dip down to the low 30s F overnight... Guess I better dig out a light jacket...
Clouds are composed of liquid water. This absorbs IR and warm. This then radiates into outer space and can easily be measured by weather satellite. So, yes. Remember that energy in equals energy out. So all you have to do is measure how it is leaving.
The question is: what is the temperature of the Earth on the average. So you simply look at the wavelength across the entire globe. These satellites are so sensitive that they can measure one square mile on the surface of the Earth which means smaller areas on the cloud tops. This is then reduced to real numbers via a computer.
Look at Google Earth and you can see your own home from space down to fine detail. But Nightmare denies that. And he denies that the NASA satellites are 100 times better plus they have full spectrum focus. Stupidity like his doesn't come along every day. |
| 20-01-2019 23:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
The Mean Global Temperature is quite easy to measure with the satellite system. The satellite measurements are now so refined that they can read temperatures almost to the square mile of surface area and the actual temperatures at specific altitudes.
The CO2 is not so easy but they are using a couple of spots on the globe and getting approximate levels. Remember - according to the silly CO2 theory, the precise amount isn't as important as the change.
Does the satellites see through clouds, of various density, and know how to compensate? What about dust storms, volcanoes, wildfires? Seems like a lot of natural events could skew the readings pretty good. What about cities, industrial areas, pavement? Still just an estimate, approximation.
Odd weather event in Florida... It 64 F by my thermometer, and mot really cold, except when the wind kicks up. There's way more than a few degrees difference. The news station call it an 'artic blast', but then again they were warning us most of the week, about rain and severe storms, before the cold front. We got basically a light sprinkle, and still about 10 degrees warmer than predicted. Latest, it's suppose to dip down to the low 30s F overnight... Guess I better dig out a light jacket...
Clouds are composed of liquid water. This absorbs IR and warm. This then radiates into outer space and can easily be measured by weather satellite. Yes, they can. The satellite, however, is incapable of measuring the absolute temperature of any cloud. It can only measure relative temperatures between clouds.
Wake wrote:
So, yes. Remember that energy in equals energy out. So all you have to do is measure how it is leaving.
You don't know how it's leaving. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Wake wrote:
The question is: what is the temperature of the Earth on the average. So you simply look at the wavelength across the entire globe. These satellites are so sensitive that they can measure one square mile on the surface of the Earth which means smaller areas on the cloud tops. This is then reduced to real numbers via a computer.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown, Wake. Satellites cannot measure a temperature. They can only measure light.
Wake wrote:
Look at Google Earth and you can see your own home from space down to fine detail. Indeed you can. That information comes primarily from Google driving vehicles across the landscape and taking picture of it. The rest is satellite imagery, using satellites that can resolve down to about the size of a house.
Wake wrote:
But Nightmare denies that. No, I do not. False equivalence fallacy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
And he denies that the NASA satellites are 100 times better plus they have full spectrum focus.
Spectrum isn't a focus, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Stupidity like his doesn't come along every day.
Inversion 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
While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 21-01-2019 17:12 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
The Mean Global Temperature is quite easy to measure with the satellite system. The satellite measurements are now so refined that they can read temperatures almost to the square mile of surface area and the actual temperatures at specific altitudes.
The CO2 is not so easy but they are using a couple of spots on the globe and getting approximate levels. Remember - according to the silly CO2 theory, the precise amount isn't as important as the change.
Does the satellites see through clouds, of various density, and know how to compensate? What about dust storms, volcanoes, wildfires? Seems like a lot of natural events could skew the readings pretty good. What about cities, industrial areas, pavement? Still just an estimate, approximation.
Odd weather event in Florida... It 64 F by my thermometer, and mot really cold, except when the wind kicks up. There's way more than a few degrees difference. The news station call it an 'artic blast', but then again they were warning us most of the week, about rain and severe storms, before the cold front. We got basically a light sprinkle, and still about 10 degrees warmer than predicted. Latest, it's suppose to dip down to the low 30s F overnight... Guess I better dig out a light jacket...
Clouds are composed of liquid water. This absorbs IR and warm. This then radiates into outer space and can easily be measured by weather satellite. Yes, they can. The satellite, however, is incapable of measuring the absolute temperature of any cloud. It can only measure relative temperatures between clouds.
Wake wrote:
So, yes. Remember that energy in equals energy out. So all you have to do is measure how it is leaving.
You don't know how it's leaving. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Wake wrote:
The question is: what is the temperature of the Earth on the average. So you simply look at the wavelength across the entire globe. These satellites are so sensitive that they can measure one square mile on the surface of the Earth which means smaller areas on the cloud tops. This is then reduced to real numbers via a computer.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown, Wake. Satellites cannot measure a temperature. They can only measure light.
Wake wrote:
Look at Google Earth and you can see your own home from space down to fine detail. Indeed you can. That information comes primarily from Google driving vehicles across the landscape and taking picture of it. The rest is satellite imagery, using satellites that can resolve down to about the size of a house.
Wake wrote:
But Nightmare denies that. No, I do not. False equivalence fallacy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
And he denies that the NASA satellites are 100 times better plus they have full spectrum focus.
Spectrum isn't a focus, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Stupidity like his doesn't come along every day.
Inversion fallacy.
You spend a great deal of time proving my opinion of your intellect correct. |
|
| 21-01-2019 19:21 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
The Mean Global Temperature is quite easy to measure with the satellite system. The satellite measurements are now so refined that they can read temperatures almost to the square mile of surface area and the actual temperatures at specific altitudes.
The CO2 is not so easy but they are using a couple of spots on the globe and getting approximate levels. Remember - according to the silly CO2 theory, the precise amount isn't as important as the change.
Does the satellites see through clouds, of various density, and know how to compensate? What about dust storms, volcanoes, wildfires? Seems like a lot of natural events could skew the readings pretty good. What about cities, industrial areas, pavement? Still just an estimate, approximation.
Odd weather event in Florida... It 64 F by my thermometer, and mot really cold, except when the wind kicks up. There's way more than a few degrees difference. The news station call it an 'artic blast', but then again they were warning us most of the week, about rain and severe storms, before the cold front. We got basically a light sprinkle, and still about 10 degrees warmer than predicted. Latest, it's suppose to dip down to the low 30s F overnight... Guess I better dig out a light jacket...
Clouds are composed of liquid water. This absorbs IR and warm. This then radiates into outer space and can easily be measured by weather satellite. Yes, they can. The satellite, however, is incapable of measuring the absolute temperature of any cloud. It can only measure relative temperatures between clouds.
Wake wrote:
So, yes. Remember that energy in equals energy out. So all you have to do is measure how it is leaving.
You don't know how it's leaving. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Wake wrote:
The question is: what is the temperature of the Earth on the average. So you simply look at the wavelength across the entire globe. These satellites are so sensitive that they can measure one square mile on the surface of the Earth which means smaller areas on the cloud tops. This is then reduced to real numbers via a computer.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown, Wake. Satellites cannot measure a temperature. They can only measure light.
Wake wrote:
Look at Google Earth and you can see your own home from space down to fine detail. Indeed you can. That information comes primarily from Google driving vehicles across the landscape and taking picture of it. The rest is satellite imagery, using satellites that can resolve down to about the size of a house.
Wake wrote:
But Nightmare denies that. No, I do not. False equivalence fallacy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
And he denies that the NASA satellites are 100 times better plus they have full spectrum focus.
Spectrum isn't a focus, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Stupidity like his doesn't come along every day.
Inversion fallacy.
You spend a great deal of time proving my opinion of your intellect correct.
I don't care about your opinion of my intellect.
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 21-01-2019 19:22 |
| 21-01-2019 20:20 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
The Mean Global Temperature is quite easy to measure with the satellite system. The satellite measurements are now so refined that they can read temperatures almost to the square mile of surface area and the actual temperatures at specific altitudes.
The CO2 is not so easy but they are using a couple of spots on the globe and getting approximate levels. Remember - according to the silly CO2 theory, the precise amount isn't as important as the change.
Does the satellites see through clouds, of various density, and know how to compensate? What about dust storms, volcanoes, wildfires? Seems like a lot of natural events could skew the readings pretty good. What about cities, industrial areas, pavement? Still just an estimate, approximation.
Odd weather event in Florida... It 64 F by my thermometer, and mot really cold, except when the wind kicks up. There's way more than a few degrees difference. The news station call it an 'artic blast', but then again they were warning us most of the week, about rain and severe storms, before the cold front. We got basically a light sprinkle, and still about 10 degrees warmer than predicted. Latest, it's suppose to dip down to the low 30s F overnight... Guess I better dig out a light jacket...
Clouds are composed of liquid water. This absorbs IR and warm. This then radiates into outer space and can easily be measured by weather satellite. Yes, they can. The satellite, however, is incapable of measuring the absolute temperature of any cloud. It can only measure relative temperatures between clouds.
Wake wrote:
So, yes. Remember that energy in equals energy out. So all you have to do is measure how it is leaving.
You don't know how it's leaving. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
Wake wrote:
The question is: what is the temperature of the Earth on the average. So you simply look at the wavelength across the entire globe. These satellites are so sensitive that they can measure one square mile on the surface of the Earth which means smaller areas on the cloud tops. This is then reduced to real numbers via a computer.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown, Wake. Satellites cannot measure a temperature. They can only measure light.
Wake wrote:
Look at Google Earth and you can see your own home from space down to fine detail. Indeed you can. That information comes primarily from Google driving vehicles across the landscape and taking picture of it. The rest is satellite imagery, using satellites that can resolve down to about the size of a house.
Wake wrote:
But Nightmare denies that. No, I do not. False equivalence fallacy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
And he denies that the NASA satellites are 100 times better plus they have full spectrum focus.
Spectrum isn't a focus, Wake.
Wake wrote:
Stupidity like his doesn't come along every day.
Inversion fallacy.
You spend a great deal of time proving my opinion of your intellect correct.
I don't care about your opinion of my intellect.
Your absence of intellect. |
| 21-01-2019 20:34 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You spend a great deal of time proving my opinion of your intellect correct.
I don't care about your opinion of my intellect.
Your absence of intellect.
Irrelevant. You just want to insult me. That's a fallacy, Wake.
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 |
| 21-01-2019 20:51 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You spend a great deal of time proving my opinion of your intellect correct.
I don't care about your opinion of my intellect.
Your absence of intellect.
Irrelevant. You just want to insult me. That's a fallacy, Wake.
Among other things you should learn the definition of "fallacy" since you are misusing it as you do everything. |
| 21-01-2019 21:38 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You spend a great deal of time proving my opinion of your intellect correct.
I don't care about your opinion of my intellect.
Your absence of intellect.
Irrelevant. You just want to insult me. That's a fallacy, Wake.
Among other things you should learn the definition of "fallacy" since you are misusing it as you do everything.
Denial of logic, Wake. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like a math error. But you deny logic. You are illiterate in that, too.
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 |
| 21-01-2019 21:59 |
HarveyH55★★★★★
(5196) |
Why isn't man-made CO2 working today? Not a cloud in the sky, and only 56 F outside. Is it because it's MLK Day?
Was sort of wondering about these Arctic Blasts, since we've got another coming later this week, not even a break from this one. Does the melting of the Arctic ice, by man-made CO2 cause these unpleasant climate events? Will they stop when all the ice is melted? |
| 21-01-2019 22:02 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why isn't man-made CO2 working today? Not a cloud in the sky, and only 56 F outside. Is it because it's MLK Day?
Was sort of wondering about these Arctic Blasts, since we've got another coming later this week, not even a break from this one. Does the melting of the Arctic ice, by man-made CO2 cause these unpleasant climate events? Will they stop when all the ice is melted?
That was really cold dude. |
| 25-01-2019 20:59 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality. I really don't know how to get through to you that CO2 doesn't cause any atmospheric heating above about 200-250 ppm. There is no energy in the absorption bands of CO2. After that energy is absorbed it transfers through the atmosphere just as any other heated gas. So while the small amounts does absorb some energy it isn't any different than the Sun striking the ground, heating it and then conducting this heat through the atmosphere and eventually into space. The density of the atmosphere is the only real variable. And we aren't effecting the atmospheric density. |
| 26-01-2019 00:00 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The best they can ever hope for, is just a rough estimate of temperature, and CO2 levels. I really don't get how they could sell the core principal that they have precise numbers to work with. Even on a clear sunny day, there are going to be other things contributing, much larger margin of error, than the 3 c degrees they predict by 2100. I guess people need something to believe in, some goal to reach for, and tend to ignore reality.
I really don't know how to get through to you that CO2 doesn't cause any atmospheric heating above about 200-250 ppm. It doesn't cause any at all, Wake. You cannot warm the Earth by using light emitted from the surface of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
There is no energy in the absorption bands of CO2.
WRONG. Infrared light is energy, Wake.
Wake wrote:
After that energy is absorbed it transfers through the atmosphere just as any other heated gas.
It also radiates, just as any mass does.
Wake wrote:
So while the small amounts does absorb some energy it isn't any different than the Sun striking the ground, heating it and then conducting this heat through the atmosphere and eventually into space.
You can't heat space by conduction, Wake. The only way for Earth to dissipate energy into space is by radiance.
Wake wrote:
The density of the atmosphere is the only real variable. And we aren't effecting the atmospheric density.
Do you know what a barometer is?
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 |
| 26-01-2019 17:33 |
Wake★★★★★
(4034) |
Nightmare - you do not need to continue proving to me and the entire world that you are a moron. We understand it already. |
| 26-01-2019 20:08 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21588) |
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you do not need to continue proving to me and the entire world that you are a moron. We understand it already.
Back to your usual insult fallacies, Wake?
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 |
| 31-01-2019 00:16 |
gfm7175 ★★★★★
(3314) |
Wake wrote:
Among other things you should learn the definition of "fallacy" since you are misusing it as you do everything.
Actually, Into The Night is using the term 'fallacy' correctly.
A fallacy is a logic error. It works much like a math error works.
You have shown to be very illiterate when it comes to logic. |
| 31-01-2019 00:19 |
gfm7175★★★★★
(3314) |
Wake wrote:
Nightmare - you do not need to continue proving to me and the entire world that you are a moron. We understand it already.
Insult Fallacy. Way to be, Wake! Keep up the strong argumentation!
As far as I am aware, space can only be heated through radiance... |