Remember me
▼ Content

Measuring Mean Global Temperature.


Measuring Mean Global Temperature.05-09-2017 00:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

Has there be global warming? According to the real data there has been. But this warming is so slight that it is entirely impossible to tell that it is nothing more than strictly normal weather variations.

Northern California had some records broken in the last week. But world wide nothing of any significance has happened.
05-09-2017 06:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

Has there be global warming? According to the real data there has been. But this warming is so slight that it is entirely impossible to tell that it is nothing more than strictly normal weather variations.

Northern California had some records broken in the last week. But world wide nothing of any significance has happened.


This is too funny. My "pet" theory that you dislike could account for more warming at ground level. If heat can be stored as angular momentum then when gases are above ground level the amount of linear momentum would decrease.
The question your link asks is why twice the warming at ground level. This suggests that a thinner atmosphere due to increased elevation does not account for the discrepancy.
Of course it's always possible he forgot to account the atmosphere thinning as altitude is increased.
05-09-2017 09:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
...deleted Holy Link containing manufactured data and conjectures...

Has there be global warming? According to the real data there has been.

There is no real data. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy. Not even Roy Spencer can do that.
Wake wrote:
But this warming is so slight that it is entirely impossible to tell that it is nothing more than strictly normal weather variations.

What warming? You don't know the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
Northern California had some records broken in the last week. But world wide nothing of any significance has happened.

Quite true. A low temperature record was broken in Kano, Nigeria, yesterday as well.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 09:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

Has there be global warming? According to the real data there has been. But this warming is so slight that it is entirely impossible to tell that it is nothing more than strictly normal weather variations.

Northern California had some records broken in the last week. But world wide nothing of any significance has happened.


This is too funny. My "pet" theory that you dislike could account for more warming at ground level. If heat can be stored

You cannot store heat.
James_ wrote:
as angular momentum

Angular momentum is not used to calculate temperature or heat.
James_ wrote:
then when gases are above ground level the amount of linear momentum would decrease.

You're lost in buzzword land again.
James_ wrote:
The question your link asks is why twice the warming at ground level. This suggests that a thinner atmosphere due to increased elevation does not account for the discrepancy.
Of course it's always possible he forgot to account the atmosphere thinning as altitude is increased.

Go look at the temperature profile of the atmosphere. You will find parts where temperature decreases with altitude, and parts where temperature increases with altitude. The air gets thinner in all cases, however.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 15:07
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

Has there be global warming? According to the real data there has been. But this warming is so slight that it is entirely impossible to tell that it is nothing more than strictly normal weather variations.

Northern California had some records broken in the last week. But world wide nothing of any significance has happened.


This is too funny. My "pet" theory that you dislike could account for more warming at ground level. If heat can be stored

You cannot store heat.
James_ wrote:
as angular momentum

Angular momentum is not used to calculate temperature or heat.
James_ wrote:
then when gases are above ground level the amount of linear momentum would decrease.

You're lost in buzzword land again.
James_ wrote:
The question your link asks is why twice the warming at ground level. This suggests that a thinner atmosphere due to increased elevation does not account for the discrepancy.
Of course it's always possible he forgot to account the atmosphere thinning as altitude is increased.

Go look at the temperature profile of the atmosphere. You will find parts where temperature decreases with altitude, and parts where temperature increases with altitude. The air gets thinner in all cases, however.


I almost feel like smoking weed when I read your posts. To have such freedom with your thoughts must be nice. There's no rhyme or reason to when you support mainstream science.
Heat can be stored, our oceans are one example while windchill is another.
05-09-2017 17:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

Has there be global warming? According to the real data there has been. But this warming is so slight that it is entirely impossible to tell that it is nothing more than strictly normal weather variations.

Northern California had some records broken in the last week. But world wide nothing of any significance has happened.


This is too funny. My "pet" theory that you dislike could account for more warming at ground level. If heat can be stored

You cannot store heat.
James_ wrote:
as angular momentum

Angular momentum is not used to calculate temperature or heat.
James_ wrote:
then when gases are above ground level the amount of linear momentum would decrease.

You're lost in buzzword land again.
James_ wrote:
The question your link asks is why twice the warming at ground level. This suggests that a thinner atmosphere due to increased elevation does not account for the discrepancy.
Of course it's always possible he forgot to account the atmosphere thinning as altitude is increased.

Go look at the temperature profile of the atmosphere. You will find parts where temperature decreases with altitude, and parts where temperature increases with altitude. The air gets thinner in all cases, however.


I almost feel like smoking weed when I read your posts. To have such freedom with your thoughts must be nice. There's no rhyme or reason to when you support mainstream science.
Heat can be stored, our oceans are one example while windchill is another.


Let's just say that Nightmare takes a lot of liberties with science. He said that you cannot measure heat via ground stations. I show a study that SHOWS him to be right and he then argues that the study is wrong and that you can accurately measure heat from ground stations.

He quotes the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in an almost uninterrupted string and then when you SHOW the use of it he says that it doesn't work that way.

When you have a link to the man who was the director of the program for NASA explaining how the Stafan-Boltzmann equation is used to measure mean global temperature he "deleted holy link".

You are referring to "storing heat in angular momentum" which isn't exactly what's happening but he insists you can't store heat.

He continually tells us that you can't heat a warmer gas with a cooler surface and then he tells us that energy from the air which he claims to be cooler than the ground is heating the ground.

When you use a simple display from NASA showing that most of the Sun's energy strikes and is absorbed by the Earth's surface and not it's atmosphere he refers to that as another holy link.

Unique thought processes is what I would call what passes for thinking for nightmare.

As for your "angular momentum" - you are using a false terminology for heat which is processed in the troposphere as conduction and convection. Contrary to nightmare's claims heat is stored in every molecule until and unless it can be either conducted to the surrounding molecules or it reaches a point of sufficient differential to the surrounding energy that it can radiate. Angular momentum is purely a mechanical component of the motion of mass.

nightmare will tell us again that "everything above absolute zero radiates" which is a total misconstruction of the universe. Everything above absolute zero can conduct heat to any surrounding molecules. If it is in empty space it can have it's energy level grow via receiving radiated energy to the point where it can release the energy in the only means available - radiation. Otherwise it is stored heat/energy.

So arguing with nightmare is a losing proposition - he merely changes his story to show himself correct. I understand you are actually trying to learn something but you are doing it from a position of extremely high bias. You are inventing the definitions of things you just learn to fit what you want to believe is happening.

You do not have the luxury of believing anything about gravity you care to invent. Electro-Magnetic force isn't related to gravity in any manner. The Van Allen Radiation Belts aren't related to gravity and they do not generate ozone. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production.

You may have theories but it they don't fit reality they are fairy tales.
05-09-2017 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

Has there be global warming? According to the real data there has been. But this warming is so slight that it is entirely impossible to tell that it is nothing more than strictly normal weather variations.

Northern California had some records broken in the last week. But world wide nothing of any significance has happened.


This is too funny. My "pet" theory that you dislike could account for more warming at ground level. If heat can be stored

You cannot store heat.
James_ wrote:
as angular momentum

Angular momentum is not used to calculate temperature or heat.
James_ wrote:
then when gases are above ground level the amount of linear momentum would decrease.

You're lost in buzzword land again.
James_ wrote:
The question your link asks is why twice the warming at ground level. This suggests that a thinner atmosphere due to increased elevation does not account for the discrepancy.
Of course it's always possible he forgot to account the atmosphere thinning as altitude is increased.

Go look at the temperature profile of the atmosphere. You will find parts where temperature decreases with altitude, and parts where temperature increases with altitude. The air gets thinner in all cases, however.


I almost feel like smoking weed when I read your posts

Perhaps you already smoked it too much.
James_ wrote:
To have such freedom with your thoughts must be nice. There's no rhyme or reason to when you support mainstream science.

There is no such thing as 'mainstream' science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.
James_ wrote:
Heat can be stored,

It is not possible to store heat.
James_ wrote:
our oceans are one example while windchill is another.

Neither is an example of storing heat.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 21:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

Has there be global warming? According to the real data there has been. But this warming is so slight that it is entirely impossible to tell that it is nothing more than strictly normal weather variations.

Northern California had some records broken in the last week. But world wide nothing of any significance has happened.


This is too funny. My "pet" theory that you dislike could account for more warming at ground level. If heat can be stored

You cannot store heat.
James_ wrote:
as angular momentum

Angular momentum is not used to calculate temperature or heat.
James_ wrote:
then when gases are above ground level the amount of linear momentum would decrease.

You're lost in buzzword land again.
James_ wrote:
The question your link asks is why twice the warming at ground level. This suggests that a thinner atmosphere due to increased elevation does not account for the discrepancy.
Of course it's always possible he forgot to account the atmosphere thinning as altitude is increased.

Go look at the temperature profile of the atmosphere. You will find parts where temperature decreases with altitude, and parts where temperature increases with altitude. The air gets thinner in all cases, however.


I almost feel like smoking weed when I read your posts. To have such freedom with your thoughts must be nice. There's no rhyme or reason to when you support mainstream science.
Heat can be stored, our oceans are one example while windchill is another.


Let's just say that Nightmare takes a lot of liberties with science.

I have taken no liberties with any theory of science. I don't try to redefine them like you do.
Wake wrote:
He said that you cannot measure heat via ground stations.

No ground station measures heat (except for some laboratories).
Wake wrote:
I show a study that SHOWS him to be right and he then argues that the study is wrong and that you can accurately measure heat from ground stations.

1) Science isn't a study. No NOAA ground station measures heat. They measure temperature, precipitation, air pressure, etc., but not heat.
Wake wrote:
He quotes the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in an almost uninterrupted string and then when you SHOW the use of it he says that it doesn't work that way.

You are trying to redefine the Stefan-Boltzmann law by adding a term for reflected light.
Wake wrote:
When you have a link to the man who was the director of the program for NASA explaining how the Stafan-Boltzmann equation is used to measure mean global temperature he "deleted holy link".

You can't use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to measure the temperature of the Earth. Not even any at NASA can do that. False authority.
Wake wrote:
You are referring to "storing heat in angular momentum" which isn't exactly what's happening but he insists you can't store heat.

You can't store heat.
Wake wrote:
He continually tells us that you can't heat a warmer gas with a cooler surface and then he tells us that energy from the air which he claims to be cooler than the ground is heating the ground.

I never said the air is heating the ground. You are making an outright lie here.
Wake wrote:
When you use a simple display from NASA showing that most of the Sun's energy strikes and is absorbed by the Earth's surface and not it's atmosphere he refers to that as another holy link.

While the surface is what absorbs most of the Sun's energy, I deleted the link because you were trying to show NASA's 'energy balance' propaganda. You weren't trying to show what strikes the surface and is absorbed. Contextomy.
Wake wrote:
Unique thought processes is what I would call what passes for thinking for nightmare.

Apparently so. Too many people here, including you, do not understand the science or the math.
Wake wrote:
As for your "angular momentum" - you are using a false terminology for heat

This part is true.
Wake wrote:
which is processed in the troposphere as conduction and convection.

Heat isn't 'processed'. It just is.
Wake wrote:
Contrary to nightmare's claims heat is stored in every molecule

No molecule stores heat. It is not possible to store heat.
Wake wrote:
until and unless it can be either conducted to the surrounding molecules or it reaches a point of sufficient differential to the surrounding energy that it can radiate.

You are describing a delta of a delta where none exists.

There is no 'sufficient point' for radiance. All materials radiate...all the time...each according to its temperature.
Wake wrote:
Angular momentum is purely a mechanical component of the motion of mass.

So is linear momentum. The difference is that angular momentum is not used to calculate thermal energy or heat.
Wake wrote:
nightmare will tell us again that "everything above absolute zero radiates" which is a total misconstruction of the universe.

WRONG. All things above absolute zero (which is all things) radiate. You are now denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law completely.
Wake wrote:
Everything above absolute zero can conduct heat to any surrounding molecules.

If and ONLY if the surrounding molecules are colder. Heat only flows one way.

You are making another false equivalence. Radiance isn't conduction.
Wake wrote:
If it is in empty space it can have it's energy level grow via receiving radiated energy to the point where it can release the energy in the only means available - radiation.

All things radiate...all the time...each according to its temperature. Again, you are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law completely.
Wake wrote:
Otherwise it is stored heat/energy.

You cannot store heat. You cannot store energy unless you turn it into potential energy (which has no temperature).
Wake wrote:
So arguing with nightmare is a losing proposition - he merely changes his story to show himself correct.

I have not changed any part of my argument. You are lying again.
Wake wrote:
I understand you are actually trying to learn something but you are doing it from a position of extremely high bias. You are inventing the definitions of things you just learn to fit what you want to believe is happening.

You do not have the luxury of believing anything about gravity you care to invent. Electro-Magnetic force isn't related to gravity in any manner. The Van Allen Radiation Belts aren't related to gravity and they do not generate ozone. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production.

This part is correct.
Wake wrote:
You may have theories but it they don't fit reality they are fairy tales.

Unfortunately for you, you also have theories that don't fit reality. You have twice denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law completely in this post alone. You are confusing 'heat' with 'thermal energy'.

You also seem to be confusing acceleration with inertia (yes, it happens with thermal energy as well) and thus denying the concept of specific heat and heat conductivity.

You seem to thing there is some 'trigger point' before something can begin to radiate. The directly denies the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You seem to be making up lies about what I have argued. Why you choose to do this is beyond me, other than attempting Bulverism.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2017 22:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:nonsense as usual


Now you're turning to blubbering nonsense - "no ground station measures heat"??

Exactly what do you suppose a thermometer does? Oh, wait, that's a holy instrument to you isn't it?
06-09-2017 00:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:nonsense as usual


Now you're turning to blubbering nonsense - "no ground station measures heat"??

Exactly what do you suppose a thermometer does? Oh, wait, that's a holy instrument to you isn't it?


A thermometer does not measure heat. A thermometer measures the average thermal energy.

A calorimeter measures heat.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2017 02:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:nonsense as usual


Now you're turning to blubbering nonsense - "no ground station measures heat"??

Exactly what do you suppose a thermometer does? Oh, wait, that's a holy instrument to you isn't it?


A thermometer does not measure heat. A thermometer measures the average thermal energy.

A calorimeter measures heat.


Are you aware of what is happening around you? Do you even have a clue?

A calorimeter is a device for measuring the amount of heat EXPENDED in a process.

A Thermometer simply measures heat and "thermal energy" is the amount of energy required to raise any specific mass to the heat that is measured. There is MORE thermal energy expended to raise a cubic foot of steel to a specific temperature than a cubic foot of nitrogen.

Why do you continue with such ignorance?

Do a search on the Internet for "Climate Change Forum". Do you see ANY other places where the actual science can be discussed rationally? No - and because the heretics do not want real science to be known.

Many "forums" do not allow ANY information that could be referred to as denying man-made global warming in the slightest. 99% of all "climate change forums" are not forums at all. They are sites that push AGW propaganda.

WE have the only site and you're destroying the entire credibility of the "denier" side with your massive ignorance that demonstrates hardly a passing idea of what science is.

Or is that your real desire?

I explained your stupidity about there not being a true theory of global warming. You don't understand what the Stefan-Boltzmann theory is so you cannot grasp what the AGW theory is.

I have multiply explained the difference between heat, thermal energy and the STORAGE of heat. You cannot grasp it.

I have explained AND shown that the study of surface temperature measuring sites have shown that only about 8% of them have an accuracy enough to be used to any useful standard.

I have demonstrated that the majority of the Sun's emissions that aren't reflected high in the atmosphere and penetrate the atmosphere WARM THE SURFACE of the Earth and not the troposphere.

I have spent hours explaining how the thermal emissions of the troposphere are almost entirely via conduction and convection. What do you come up with? That anything above absolute zero radiates in all directions all the time. Because you do not understand the first thing about thermal energy you are back to saying that a cold surface can warm a hot one.

You do not understand the most critical points and you do not understand what this leads to.

But by all means stay here blithering idiocy because your intent is to make climate change look like the only real science.
07-09-2017 02:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:nonsense as usual


Now you're turning to blubbering nonsense - "no ground station measures heat"??

Exactly what do you suppose a thermometer does? Oh, wait, that's a holy instrument to you isn't it?


A thermometer does not measure heat. A thermometer measures the average thermal energy.

A calorimeter measures heat.


Are you aware of what is happening around you? Do you even have a clue?

A calorimeter is a device for measuring the amount of heat EXPENDED in a process.

A calorimeter measures heat.
Wake wrote:
A Thermometer simply measures heat

WRONG. A thermometer measures thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
and "thermal energy" is the amount of energy required to raise any specific mass to the heat that is measured.
There is MORE thermal energy expended to raise a cubic foot of steel to a specific temperature than a cubic foot of nitrogen.

You have it exactly backwards.
Wake wrote:
Why do you continue with such ignorance?

Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
Do a search on the Internet for "Climate Change Forum". Do you see ANY other places where the actual science can be discussed rationally? No - and because the heretics do not want real science to be known.

I would certainly agree to that. The Church of Global Warming is widespread and denies science.
Wake wrote:
Many "forums" do not allow ANY information that could be referred to as denying man-made global warming in the slightest. 99% of all "climate change forums" are not forums at all. They are sites that push AGW propaganda.

Many are, yes.
Wake wrote:
WE have the only site and you're destroying the entire credibility of the "denier" side with your massive ignorance that demonstrates hardly a passing idea of what science is.

Not true. There are other sites that discuss 'global warming' that tolerate Outsiders of the religion.

It is YOU that doesn't seem to understand either the 2nd law of thermodynamics or the Stefan Boltzmann law (especially the S-B law).

Wake wrote:
Or is that your real desire?

Inversion fallacy. The problem is with YOU.
Wake wrote:
I explained your stupidity about there not being a true theory of global warming.

There isn't a theory of 'global warming'. There is only the circular definition of 'global warming'.
Wake wrote:
You don't understand what the Stefan-Boltzmann theory is

Shall I quote it again?

radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The equation is derived from Planck's law by integrating over all frequencies of light.

Wake wrote:
so you cannot grasp what the AGW theory is.

The is no AGW theory. There is only the circular definition of 'global warming'.
Wake wrote:
I have multiply explained the difference between heat, thermal energy and the STORAGE of heat. You cannot grasp it.

I grasp it. You are not. Your explanation is wrong.
Wake wrote:
I have explained AND shown that the study of surface temperature measuring sites have shown that only about 8% of them have an accuracy enough to be used to any useful standard.

Also wrong. Thermometers are NOAA stations are accurate to fractions of a degree. They are checked annually. Airport thermometers are also checked annually.
Wake wrote:
I have demonstrated that the majority of the Sun's emissions that aren't reflected high in the atmosphere and penetrate the atmosphere WARM THE SURFACE of the Earth and not the troposphere.

You get no argument from me on that one. I've been saying basically the same thing.
Wake wrote:
I have spent hours explaining how the thermal emissions of the troposphere are almost entirely via conduction and convection.

There are no thermal emissions, other than Planck radiation according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which you deny).

Thermal energy in the troposphere does move by conduction and convection. Yet another way for heat to be lost from the surface.

Wake wrote:
What do you come up with? That anything above absolute zero radiates in all directions all the time.

It does.
Wake wrote:
Because you do not understand the first thing about thermal energy you are back to saying that a cold surface can warm a hot one.

I never made that argument, liar.
Wake wrote:
You do not understand the most critical points and you do not understand what this leads to.

It is YOU that has this problem. Inversion fallacy.
Wake wrote:
But by all means stay here blithering idiocy because your intent is to make climate change look like the only real science.

'Climate change' cannot even be defined without using a circular definition. Science has no theory dependent on any circular argument. No theory at all may exist within a logical fallacy such as vacuous argument (caused by the lack of a definition for 'climate change').


I really don't understand why you think I'm trying to support the Church of Global Warming. I have used only two theories of science. They are their own support and reference. I need no other.

If you want to understand the Stefan-Boltzmann law, I suggest you start with learning the concept of a dependent variable, an independent variable, a constant of nature, and a measured constant.

You will see why if you don't know the emissivity, you can't invert the equation. Heck...you can even calculate the radiance in the first place. You have to measure it, which is all a satellite does. No satellite can measure the temperature, because the emissivity is not known. To measure the emissivity, you have to accurately know the temperature in the first place. That means the global temperature, which can't be determined.

The equation IS sufficient to show that you can't use the Magick Bouncing Photon argument to describe a scenario where radiance is reduced (by reducing the light emitted to space...even for a moment) and increase the temperature at the same time.

Your lack of understanding in mathematics really gets in your way. You might want to study up on the mathematics of random numbers to begin with. From there you can study up on the concepts in probability and eventually statistical math.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2017 17:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:nonsense as usual


Now you're turning to blubbering nonsense - "no ground station measures heat"??

Exactly what do you suppose a thermometer does? Oh, wait, that's a holy instrument to you isn't it?


A thermometer does not measure heat. A thermometer measures the average thermal energy.

Into the Night wrote:A calorimeter measures heat.


Anyone can look up a thermometer on the Internet including Wikipedia and see that you are wrong. But to you anything that contradicts you is wrong. Even the origination of the thermometer by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. Obviously you are much brighter than he was.

Or is this your usual ploy to make real science appear to be otherwise?
07-09-2017 21:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:nonsense as usual


Now you're turning to blubbering nonsense - "no ground station measures heat"??

Exactly what do you suppose a thermometer does? Oh, wait, that's a holy instrument to you isn't it?


A thermometer does not measure heat. A thermometer measures the average thermal energy.

Into the Night wrote:A calorimeter measures heat.


Anyone can look up a thermometer on the Internet including Wikipedia and see that you are wrong.

The internet is not the Oracle of Truth. It is not science. It does not define terms in science. Wikipedia in particular is biased, incomplete, and often flat wrong. It is discarded on sight as a reference.
Wake wrote:
But to you anything that contradicts you is wrong.

Science and scientific terms do not contradict me.
Wake wrote:
Even the origination of the thermometer by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit.

He did not invent the thermometer. Obviously you know little of the history of instrumentation as well as the history of science.
Wake wrote:
Obviously you are much brighter than he was.

I am.
Wake wrote:
Or is this your usual ploy to make real science appear to be otherwise?

Thermometers are instruments, not science. The concept of a temperature is described in the theories and laws of thermodynamics. You should probably go back and study them.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2017 21:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote: the normal nonsense from an idiot


One thing is that Wikipedia and most of the other sites are 10,000 times more accurate than you. You throw around terms like "thermal energy" and "calorimeter" as if you had some sort of idea what they are.

Now that I've told people a little about Greenman how about I give them your entire life story?
07-09-2017 23:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: the normal nonsense from an idiot


One thing is that Wikipedia
Dismissed.
Wake wrote:
and most of the other sites are 10,000 times more accurate than you.
Vague claim and an argument from randU. Dismissed.
Wake wrote:
You throw around terms like "thermal energy" and "calorimeter" as if you had some sort of idea what they are.
I know exactly what they are.
Wake wrote:
Now that I've told people a little about Greenman how about I give them your entire life story?


You're into fake data, fake facts, and fake history. Who am I to stop you?

You have no idea my life story, dumbass!


The Parrot Killer
08-09-2017 02:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: the normal nonsense from an idiot


One thing is that Wikipedia
Dismissed.
Wake wrote:
and most of the other sites are 10,000 times more accurate than you.
Vague claim and an argument from randU. Dismissed.
Wake wrote:
You throw around terms like "thermal energy" and "calorimeter" as if you had some sort of idea what they are.
I know exactly what they are.
Wake wrote:
Now that I've told people a little about Greenman how about I give them your entire life story?


You're into fake data, fake facts, and fake history. Who am I to stop you?

You have no idea my life story, dumbass!


You have no life story. We both know it. Only I know why.
08-09-2017 04:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: the normal nonsense from an idiot


One thing is that Wikipedia
Dismissed.
Wake wrote:
and most of the other sites are 10,000 times more accurate than you.
Vague claim and an argument from randU. Dismissed.
Wake wrote:
You throw around terms like "thermal energy" and "calorimeter" as if you had some sort of idea what they are.
I know exactly what they are.
Wake wrote:
Now that I've told people a little about Greenman how about I give them your entire life story?


You're into fake data, fake facts, and fake history. Who am I to stop you?

You have no idea my life story, dumbass!


You have no life story. We both know it. Only I know why.


So...I'm not alive. Guess you failed the Turing Test.


The Parrot Killer
08-09-2017 16:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
Into the Night wrote: So...I'm not alive. Guess you failed the Turing Test.


And yet ANOTHER page out of the Big Book of Things to Say to Sound Intelligent.

I should buy that book and simply write down the page numbers. The moronic reactions you have could make a penguin laugh.
08-09-2017 19:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: So...I'm not alive. Guess you failed the Turing Test.


And yet ANOTHER page out of the Big Book of Things to Say to Sound Intelligent.

I should buy that book and simply write down the page numbers. The moronic reactions you have could make a penguin laugh.


You would know, penguin expert.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-09-2017 19:42
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, a while back Spot posted up a link to an article trying to make is seem that all the penguins were being wiped out due to global warming....because they couldn't survive the warmer climate. A small bit of research turned up the Adelle Penguin in MUCH warmer climates. The Adelle is having some trouble, but it certainly ins't due to climate. The article also failed to mention the other 2 species, one of which is doing well, the other is thriving.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:

08-09-2017 19:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
GasGuzzler wrote:
For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, a while back Spot posted up a link to an article trying to make is seem that all the penguins were being wiped out due to global warming....because they couldn't survive the warmer climate. A small bit of research turned up the Adelle Penguin in MUCH warmer climates. The Adelle is having some trouble, but it certainly ins't due to climate. The article also failed to mention the other 2 species, one of which is doing well, the other is thriving.


Way back when he was telling us that Polar Bears couldn't mate on land - only on ice. From the 5,000 then the Polar Bear population has fallen all the way to 25,000 what with not being able to mate on land.
08-09-2017 19:53
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
GasGuzzler wrote:
For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, a while back Spot posted up a link to an article trying to make is seem that all the penguins were being wiped out due to global warming....because they couldn't survive the warmer climate. A small bit of research turned up the Adelle Penguin in MUCH warmer climates. The Adelle is having some trouble, but it certainly ins't due to climate. The article also failed to mention the other 2 species, one of which is doing well, the other is thriving.



Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

It is hardly a counterargument to my point that humans are affecting the environment.

In fact that is the reason I bought it up because people refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer this and a multitude of other examples prove them wrong.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-09-2017 20:05
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, a while back Spot posted up a link to an article trying to make is seem that all the penguins were being wiped out due to global warming....because they couldn't survive the warmer climate. A small bit of research turned up the Adelle Penguin in MUCH warmer climates. The Adelle is having some trouble, but it certainly ins't due to climate. The article also failed to mention the other 2 species, one of which is doing well, the other is thriving.



Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

It is hardly a counterargument to my point that humans are affecting the environment.

In fact that is the reason I bought it up because people refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer this and a multitude of other examples prove them wrong.


...and then you post up crap about the cherry blossoms coming out earlier in Japan due to AGW. And then we find out that started in 1820!!!..long before any humans could have influenced anything.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Attached image:


Edited on 08-09-2017 20:05
08-09-2017 20:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, a while back Spot posted up a link to an article trying to make is seem that all the penguins were being wiped out due to global warming....because they couldn't survive the warmer climate. A small bit of research turned up the Adelle Penguin in MUCH warmer climates. The Adelle is having some trouble, but it certainly ins't due to climate. The article also failed to mention the other 2 species, one of which is doing well, the other is thriving.



Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

It is hardly a counterargument to my point that humans are affecting the environment.

In fact that is the reason I bought it up because people refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer this and a multitude of other examples prove them wrong.


...and then you post up crap about the cherry blossoms coming out earlier in Japan due to AGW. And then we find out that started in 1820!!!..long before any humans could have influenced anything.


I can't see that through your eyes but it shows it's getting warmer.

That is the point of posting stuff like that.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-09-2017 20:41
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, a while back Spot posted up a link to an article trying to make is seem that all the penguins were being wiped out due to global warming....because they couldn't survive the warmer climate. A small bit of research turned up the Adelle Penguin in MUCH warmer climates. The Adelle is having some trouble, but it certainly ins't due to climate. The article also failed to mention the other 2 species, one of which is doing well, the other is thriving.



Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

It is hardly a counterargument to my point that humans are affecting the environment.

In fact that is the reason I bought it up because people refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer this and a multitude of other examples prove them wrong.


...and then you post up crap about the cherry blossoms coming out earlier in Japan due to AGW. And then we find out that started in 1820!!!..long before any humans could have influenced anything.


I can't see that through your eyes but it shows it's getting warmer.

That is the point of posting stuff like that.


No, your point is to try and get me and everyone else to burn less fuel, get less done, make less money, be less comfortable, give gov more control, and pay more taxes. If you argue you are a bold faced liar.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
08-09-2017 21:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, a while back Spot posted up a link to an article trying to make is seem that all the penguins were being wiped out due to global warming....because they couldn't survive the warmer climate. A small bit of research turned up the Adelle Penguin in MUCH warmer climates. The Adelle is having some trouble, but it certainly ins't due to climate. The article also failed to mention the other 2 species, one of which is doing well, the other is thriving.



Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

It is hardly a counterargument to my point that humans are affecting the environment.

In fact that is the reason I bought it up because people refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer this and a multitude of other examples prove them wrong.


Science does not use supporting evidence.

You have not yet shown why the Church of Global Warming is more than just a religion.


The Parrot Killer
08-09-2017 21:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote: Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

It is hardly a counterargument to my point that humans are affecting the environment.

In fact that is the reason I bought it up because people refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer this and a multitude of other examples prove them wrong.


You must be talking about your home.
08-09-2017 21:49
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

It is hardly a counterargument to my point that humans are affecting the environment.

In fact that is the reason I bought it up because people refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer this and a multitude of other examples prove them wrong.


You must be talking about your home.




I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
08-09-2017 22:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, a while back Spot posted up a link to an article trying to make is seem that all the penguins were being wiped out due to global warming....because they couldn't survive the warmer climate. A small bit of research turned up the Adelle Penguin in MUCH warmer climates. The Adelle is having some trouble, but it certainly ins't due to climate. The article also failed to mention the other 2 species, one of which is doing well, the other is thriving.



Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

It is hardly a counterargument to my point that humans are affecting the environment.

In fact that is the reason I bought it up because people refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer this and a multitude of other examples prove them wrong.


It is no surprise that some slack jawed Englishman can't understand the English language. The educational standards in GB make American schools look like universities.

No one is saying that it MAY not be warming. We have said repeatedly that CO2 cannot effect the temperature of the troposphere except to cool it. So man's addition of CO2 has nothing but positive effects via greatly enhanced plant growth.

Only a fool continues misrepresent what has been said along with the science to support these claims.
08-09-2017 23:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
For those of you who don't know or have forgotten, a while back Spot posted up a link to an article trying to make is seem that all the penguins were being wiped out due to global warming....because they couldn't survive the warmer climate. A small bit of research turned up the Adelle Penguin in MUCH warmer climates. The Adelle is having some trouble, but it certainly ins't due to climate. The article also failed to mention the other 2 species, one of which is doing well, the other is thriving.



Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

It is hardly a counterargument to my point that humans are affecting the environment.

In fact that is the reason I bought it up because people refuse to believe that the earth is getting warmer this and a multitude of other examples prove them wrong.


It is no surprise that some slack jawed Englishman can't understand the English language. The educational standards in GB make American schools look like universities.

No one is saying that it MAY not be warming. We have said repeatedly that CO2 cannot effect the temperature of the troposphere except to cool it.

CO2 doesn't cool the troposphere. It actually heats it very slightly. It DOES help cool the surface though. CO2 is simply another way for the surface to cool by heating the air.

Convection and radiance will cool any heated air.

Wake wrote:
So man's addition of CO2 has nothing but positive effects via greatly enhanced plant growth.

This is correct.
Wake wrote:
Only a fool continues misrepresent what has been said along with the science to support these claims.

Spot isn't using science.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2017 03:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Rats, pidgins and jellyfish are also thriving.

You must be talking about your home.

Nah. Spot is talking 'bout Bangladesh now.... Florida, later. Actually, Delaware averages lower than Florida.
22-09-2017 13:23
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:... any useful degree...

True. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" hasn't any useful degree.




Join the debate Measuring Mean Global Temperature.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
Temperature207-08-2019 05:59
There is no evidence CO2 increases temperature128-06-2019 05:22
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
Carbon dioxide does not affect temperature but it does make muscles ache401-05-2019 20:38
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact