Migrations induced by extreme climatic events

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Do you believe in weather at all? Is that "unknowable" too!

Specify. There is no boundary to the question.

My question is what YOU consider knowable as weather.

Why play a game where I guess at what you believe and you say nu uh, guess again. YOU tell me what is knowable in terms of "weather" or you should be objecting every-time that word appears too.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Guess what. The weather changes all year, it changes all month, all day, and even every hour, minute and second. It is never something you can know completely and exactly.

Sure it is. You can know the weather at any time for where you are standing. You can even take thermometers, barometers, hydrometers, and any other instrument you can think of with you. All of your measurements are the weather where you are at, at the time you are measuring it.

tmiddles wrote:

So you are arguing that you cannot know the weather. Ok.

I'm not I'm saying knowing anything in this real world means having a grasp of it's changing reality. You're never 100%. Dissagree? If so give an example.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
From a block of steel in the lab to the albedo of Earth.

You can measure a block of steel. You can know it's weight, it's average temperature (since steel is such a good conductor of heat), it's hardness, it's tensile strength, it's sheer strength, and its compressive strength. You can even measure how much carbon is in the steel.

So I could address all of that but let's go with temp first. How could you know a block of steel (in the lab) had a certain average temperature?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
"Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are names FOR the same thing which, whether or not you agree with it, is clearly defined.

Then define them. You have now stated that they are synonyms. But you can't define a word with another undefined word.

Waiting to see if you consider the word "Weather" to be undefined.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: My question is what YOU consider knowable as weather.

Oh, pick me! Pick me! I want to get in this.

I'm going to take a guess that Into the Night will claim that you can, in fact, know what the weather is, say, outside your house by, say, walking outside your house. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and bet that if you were to, say, walk outside your house with no measuring instruments whatsoever, you could nonetheless know what the weather is to a level that gives you a high degree of confidence that you know what the weather is outside your house.

... and that's with absolutely no measuring instruments at all.

If I'm right, what do I win?

.

Into the Night wrote:You win. I have no prize to offer you, however, other than bragging rights.

IBdaMann wrote:...you can, in fact, know what the weather is, say, outside your house by, say, walking outside your house...

HarveyH55 wrote:
Without instruments, I can tell the weather, and I can make a fairly accurate forecast for the rest of the day. It's warm and sunny, light breeze, few clouds at a distance. Should get a little warmer, possible light shower (few minutes) later on, more sun. Nice day, might fly my drone a little.

Into the Night wrote:
Look out the window. Better, go outside. Is it warm? Is it raining? Is it snowing? Are there clouds in the sky? That's weather, dude.

Into the Night wrote:Weather is simply the combination of temperature, humidity, cloud cover, wind speed and direction, precipitation, and barometric pressure at a particular moment and in a particular location. Weather is not quantifiable, but it is made up of quantifiable elements.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
How could you know a block of steel (in the lab) had a certain average temperature?

Simple. Steel has a high thermal conductivity. Once equilibrium is reached (just a dozen minutes or so for a steel block near room temperature), the entire steel block is the same as room temperature.

IBdaMann wrote:
C'mon, there's gotta be a prize at the end of this rope.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Simple. Steel has a high thermal conductivity. Once equilibrium is reached (just a dozen minutes or so for a steel block near room temperature), the entire steel block is the same as room temperature.

We come back to our old discussion of "Accurate" which I maintain is a meaningless word in itself about as specific as saying "close enough". That block of steel is in fact a mix of a multitude of different thermal energies and temperatures. We would say "slight" differences but that's a matter of perspective. You could measure a few points on the block, find nothing you consider to be an important difference and conclude you know the temperature. What you really know is the temperature range. You may call that range "narrow" but it's still a range.

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. It's not a range. The block of steel, once equilibrium is reached, is all the same temperature.

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. It's not a range. The block of steel, once equilibrium is reached, is all the same temperature.

No, each molecule can have a slightly different energy level. Let's here from Max Planck:

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another.

And by the way a true and pure equilibrium is never reached. Welcome to the real world.

Do you deny that weather is a range as well?

tmiddles wrote:No, each molecule can have a slightly different energy level.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:No, each molecule can have a slightly different energy level.

This is something I wanted to cover...you have to remain at the level of precision of your ability to measure...

tmiddles wrote: So you'd agree that "Temperature" is only ever a range and never a single unchanging value? KNOWING the temperature of something mean's knowing the range, narrow or not, that it posses's. Correct?

tmiddles wrote: In determining temperature with a measuring device we will get different readings, slight or not, and we have to interpret that. Usually identifying the "temperature" as the mean, average of those values.

Or do I have it wrong? And if so what is the RIGHT WAY to determine temperature?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: So you'd agree that "Temperature" is only ever a range...

Nope. ...three parameters: 1) the resulting value, 2) the precision... and 3) the tolerance ...

IBdaMann wrote:...I were to take copious measurements, ...to include "margin of error."...

tmiddles wrote:
Why do you assume that what you are measuring has a flawlessly uniform distribution of thermal energy?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...I were to take copious measurements, ...to include "margin of error."...

Nope! It's not an error if it's true.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Why do you assume that what you are measuring has a flawlessly uniform distribution of thermal energy?

Why do you assume I assume that?

Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules,[/b]...
Margin of error. Learn it.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Why do you assume that what you are measuring has a flawlessly uniform distribution of thermal energy?

Why do you assume I assume that?

Because you call different readings "errors".

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...I were to take copious measurements, ...to include "margin of error."...

Nope! It's not an error if it's true. If what you decide to call your object (what fraction of the universe you draw a line around and say "I'm just measuring this piece") has different thermal energies in different places and at different times, that's not an error! That's reality!

tmiddles wrote:
I've debunked your fake presentation that there is "valid data" you accept. In 5 years you've never accepted any data. Just a game you play.

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot equivocate part of a system as the system.

IBdaMann wrote:
Well, I do not ... and your assumption is false.

tmainstream-media wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot equivocate part of a system as the system.

IBdaMann wrote:
Well, I do not ... and your assumption is false.

Dodge Dodge Dodge

tmainstream-media wrote: So Fraud squad how do you measure the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate? Is that also unknowable?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You cannot equivocate part of a system as the system.

IBdaMann wrote:
Well, I do not ... and your assumption is false.

Dodge Dodge Dodge

So Fraud squad how do you measure the temperature of a block of steel on a hot plate? Is that also unknowable?

tmiddles wrote:
We certainly all agree on this part! Would it not be fair to say that it's within a range for all the measurements? Slight variations even from the front to the back yard, and moment to moment. As a child I once had it raining in my back yard and not my front yard...

Into the Night wrote:
The block of steel, once equilibrium is reached, is all the same temperature.

tmiddles wrote:
So what about a block of steel sitting on a heating element? Can you find the temperature? Is it perfectly distributed in the block?

tmiddles wrote:
If what you decide to call your object (what fraction of the universe you draw a line around and say "I'm just measuring this piece") has different thermal energies in different places and at different times, that's not an error! That's reality!

IBdaMann wrote:
If it involves a temperature then you have to remain at the level of precision of your ability to measure...which precludes distinguishing between individual molecules that cannot be measured.

IBdaMann wrote:
Either you have one "body" or you account for every single molecule separately.

tmiddles wrote:
They are not they are simply variance and the truth.

VernerHornung wrote:...a block of steel in thermal equilibrium with the room, everything at the same temperature. Hard to imagine a more boring thermodynamic scenario.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So what about a block of steel sitting on a heating element?...

...steady flow and equilibrium both,...

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Either you have one "body" or you account for every single molecule separately.

But this false dichotomy is absurd.

VernerHornung wrote:...use a system of nine bodies, sun and planets, or if wanting more precision, include the larger moons, asteroids & minor planets.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
They are not they are simply variance and the truth.

...Say all your thermometer readings...they're all about 10˚ too high...

tmainstream-media wrote:But what about when a body has matter leave it? Is that now a new body?

tmainstream-media wrote: The pretense of ITN/IBD has been that it's UNKNOWABLE!

VernerHornung wrote:
Yup. The Earth isn't in thermal equilibrium with the sun any more than my skillet was.

VernerHornung wrote:
Furthermore, Earth's composition is hardly as uniform as the pan's, but more like a copper-bottom pan with plastic handle inlaid with rubies and amethysts! So we already have variation by place and time.

VernerHornung wrote:
To deal with time, averaging methods are used

VernerHornung wrote:
so we can examine long-term changes without the distraction of day/night and summer/winter contrasts.

VernerHornung wrote:
But we must deal with surface & atmosphere individually because gases, liquid ocean, ices and solid ground all have very distinct properties.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
If it involves a temperature then you have to remain at the level of precision of your ability to measure...which precludes distinguishing between individual molecules that cannot be measured.

Agreed here. Temperature is a statistical property of collections of molecules, and with 10^22 iron atoms in a gram of iron, we're not gonna try to observe each one.

VernerHornung wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Either you have one "body" or you account for every single molecule separately.

But this false dichotomy is absurd.

VernerHornung wrote:
Every atom in the solar system exerts a gravitational effect on every other atom in Newtonian mechanics, yet astronomers developing ephemerides for the planets' motions are required neither to treat the solar system as a single body nor to analyze every one of its molecules. Rather, they use a system of nine bodies, sun and planets, or if wanting more precision, include the larger moons, asteroids & minor planets.

VernerHornung wrote:
Engineers at GM likewise analyze auto engines as systems of discrete parts: block, pistons, radiator.

VernerHornung wrote:
They don't even treat the block as a uniform body

VernerHornung wrote:
except insofar as it's all made of a single alloy;

VernerHornung wrote:
their models slice the block into thin layers or small cubical elements,

VernerHornung wrote:
each of which contains zillions of metal atoms but comprises a tiny portion of the block as a whole.

VernerHornung wrote:
They must do this to analyze heat flow through the block while the engine's running.

VernerHornung wrote:
The cylinder walls are much hotter than the outside of the block, and they want to know where best to place the coolant channels that keep the device from seizing up on the road.

VernerHornung wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
They are not they are simply variance and the truth.

The term "margin of error" is meaningless anyway

VernerHornung wrote:
and rarely used in science,

VernerHornung wrote:
which simply calls it "error."

VernerHornung wrote:
There are two kinds: statistical and systematic.

VernerHornung wrote:
Error bars in documents report the statistical spread; in general, the bars are fixed so that 95% of the measurements lie between the bars.

VernerHornung wrote:
But this "95% confidence interval" won't reveal systematic error.

VernerHornung wrote:
Say all your thermometer readings cluster together in a narrow range, but they're all about 10˚ too high.

VernerHornung wrote:
You'll get a small error bar that makes the measurements look more accurate than they really are.

VernerHornung wrote:
Error bars

VernerHornung wrote:
are useful for determining how much your signal is affected by random noise,

VernerHornung wrote:
but they won't tell you whether your signal-detecting apparatus is miscalibrated,

VernerHornung wrote:
nor whether the assumptions that underpin your measurement method are valid.

VernerHornung wrote:
Gas thermometers, the gold standard for precise readings,

VernerHornung wrote:
assume the nitrogen inside them will expand at constant pressure according to the ideal gas law, with a small correction term that allows for nitrogen's departure from ideal behavior.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:But what about when a body has matter leave it? Is that now a new body?

Yes it is. Very good.

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
Yup. The Earth isn't in thermal equilibrium with the sun any more than my skillet was.

Both the Earth and the skillet are in equilibrium, even though temperatures may differ at different locations on them.

Into the Night wrote:
...you are trying to separate the Earth into parts again,...

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from Earth's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

Into the Night wrote:
They are valid as long as the instrument was calibrated.

tmiddles wrote: I hate to break it to you but the entire solar system is "a body",

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

VernerHornung wrote:
Yup. The Earth isn't in thermal equilibrium with the sun any more than my skillet was.

Both the Earth and the skillet are in equilibrium, even though temperatures may differ at different locations on them.

I think you're confused about what "Equilibrium" means there ITN. It means there is no change and it's a "break even" scenario (to use a business analogy). It is:
"a state in which opposing forces or influences are balanced."

tmiddles wrote:
So the frying pan is definitely not in equilibrium as you don't buy them from the store red hot and you don't put them in the cupboard that way either.

tmiddles wrote:
A frying pan's life is one of occasional equilibrium while on the shelf at home, for brief periods.
So again: THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM would mean that the temperature isn't changing

tmiddles wrote:
You are of course in no position to claim the Earth is in Equilibrium since you claim the temperature is unknown. So YOU don't know.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
...you are trying to separate the Earth into parts again,...

As stated above seperating the Earth from the Moon, or either from the Solar system, an on and on, is not "correct". You're making up rules again.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR from Earth's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.

Easily reformatted as the also false statement: "No blanket has the capability to warm you using IR from your surface.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
* You can't create energy out of nothing."

WRONG! ITN/IBD have no explanation for why planets have higher ground level temps then they would without gases.

tmiddles wrote:
They pretend we don't know the temp of the Earth, Moon, Venus, Mercury or anything.

tmiddles wrote:
YET they claim they know what is going on with no evidence at all.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
They are valid as long as the instrument was calibrated.

Says the guy who has never accepted measurements of anything. Lies Lies Lies.

IBdaMann wrote:...You keep shifting goalposts... your model needs to support some argument.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Both the Earth and the skillet are in equilibrium,..

I think you're confused about what "Equilibrium" means there ITN. It means there is no change ..

And they are, even on a hot stove.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
WRONG! ITN/IBD have no explanation for why planets have higher ground level temps then they would without gases.

They don't.

Into the Night wrote:...the laws of thermodynamics...

HarveyH55 wrote:
The error, is in trying to treat the whole planet, as if the same thing is happening over the entire surface.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Blankets, clothing, walls, a greenhouse... They all work the same way, they reduce convection.

tmiddles wrote: Why is the Earth warmer than the moon? It's not? Wait it's not knowable?

tmiddles wrote: Venus is unknown! It's all unknown!

tmiddles wrote: Confirming that something is wrong is an important part of the process.

IBdaMann wrote:
Showing that something is false is the purpose of the scientific method.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Showing that something is false is the purpose of the scientific method.

Yet you have never once, in 5 years, shown that ANYTHING is correct.

tmiddles wrote: That's not the scientific method.

tmiddles wrote: Here's how it's done:

tmiddles wrote: You find the errors by comparing the work to work done properly.

tmiddles wrote: If you don't believe anything has ever been done right, well, you're kinda done and should find a new hobby.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Blankets, clothing, walls, a greenhouse... They all work the same way, they reduce convection. They don't warm or cool anything. CO2 and everything else in the atmosphere, are part of the convection. You if you want to get cool, you remove clothes, open windows, turn on fans.

The error, is in trying to treat the whole planet, as if the same thing is happening over the entire surface. It's not, on side is exposed to the sun, receiving energy, the other half is in shadow, and shedding energy. The planet is of sufficient size, that it does warm all the way through, doesn't even warm very deep at all. There is warming and cooling going on at the same time, from different halves of the planet. The cooling, is heat moving away from the surface, carried away. It's a one-way journey, until the sun rises again,

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...You keep shifting goalposts... your model needs to support some argument.

You like to pretend your hands are somehow tied, or that this is all figured out (or unknowable, one of the two) so there is no point in your offering any explanation for anything.

tmiddles wrote:
Why is the Earth warmer than the moon?

tmiddles wrote:
It's not? Wait it's not knowable?

tmiddles wrote:
It's a warmazombie conspiracy!

tmiddles wrote:
Venus is unknown! It's all unknown!

tmiddles wrote:
It's often easier to prove something is dead wrong that to prove it's correct.

tmiddles wrote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
Richard P. Feynman

tmiddles wrote:
Confirming that something is wrong is an important part of the process. Join in. Be useful. Prove this wrong don't just give up, cop out and waste everyone's time including your own.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Both the Earth and the skillet are in equilibrium,..

I think you're confused about what "Equilibrium" means there ITN. It means there is no change ..

And they are, even on a hot stove.

If that were always true you could never cook dinner could you? Not everything is always in equilibrium, in fact almost nothing ever truly is.

tmiddles wrote:
A watched pot never boils, especially if it's already in equilibrium.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
WRONG! ITN/IBD have no explanation for why planets have higher ground level temps then they would without gases.

They don't.

Just living in denial!

tmiddles wrote:
Also totally inconsistent and hypocritical.

tmiddles wrote:
If the temperature of a planet is unknown then you don't know do you? You're just a fraud.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...the laws of thermodynamics...

ITN, if a student wanted to learn those laws how could they do that?

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The error, is in trying to treat the whole planet, as if the same thing is happening over the entire surface.

Harvey do you believe that Venus is hotter than Mercury? Again, Mercury is much closer to the Sun but all the data we've collected, directly, shows that venus-is-hotter-than-mercury The "whole planet" as compared with the other "whole planet". And the "whole Earth" is considerably warmer, 30C, than the "whole moon", both the same distance from the Sun.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Blankets, clothing, walls, a greenhouse... They all work the same way, they reduce convection.

Now the moon, (we've been there, with thermometers), has it's convection completely reduced, to zero convection, and it's not warmer it's colder.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
Showing that something is false is the purpose of the scientific method.

Yet you have never once, in 5 years, shown that ANYTHING is correct. That's not the scientific method.

tmiddles wrote:
It's comparative. (ever here of a control group?).

tmiddles wrote:
Here's how it's done: You find the errors by comparing the work to work done properly.

tmiddles wrote:
If you don't believe anything has ever been done right, well, you're kinda done and should find a new hobby.

IBdaMann wrote:
1) Nothing in science is ever confirmed or proven TRUE/"correct."

IBdaMann wrote:
2) You have not researched the number of times I have used the word "correct"

IBdaMann wrote:
When Newton proposed F=m*a, against which properly done work was his model compared in search of errors?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: If you don't believe anything has ever been done right, well, you're kinda done and should find a new hobby.

Incorrect. If there had already existed a "correct" model of F=m*a

Into the Night wrote:treating two different thermodynamic systems as if they are the same system. This error that tmiddles is making is based on a goalpost fallacy.

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Their overall temperatures are similar due to their similar distance from the Sun, and vary only by the emissivity of either body,

Into the Night wrote:Science only uses conflicting evidence.
Only religions use supporting evidence.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
1) Nothing in science is ever confirmed or proven TRUE/"correct."

Things are confirmed all the time.

tmiddles wrote:
You just can't ever be completely certain.

tmiddles wrote:
You statement is basically false practically speaking.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
When Newton proposed F=m*a, against which properly done work was his model compared in search of errors?

What work did Newton do in developing it? Do you know how he worked?

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: If you don't believe anything has ever been done right, well, you're kinda done and should find a new hobby.

Incorrect. If there had already existed a "correct" model of F=m*a

Ah more dumb games deliberately misconstruing things. The METHOD can be compared.

tmiddles wrote:
But again do you know how Newton worked? Were experiments done?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:treating two different thermodynamic systems as if they are the same system. This error that tmiddles is making is based on a goalpost fallacy.

No it's looking at the parts of a system.

tmiddles wrote:
Depending on the discussion we'd even include the liquid of the Ocean as a apart interacting with the other parts of Earth.

tmiddles wrote:
But you're just silent as usual on the PROPER METHOD.

tmiddles wrote:
But no one is stopping you from laying it out.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. Their overall temperatures are similar due to their similar distance from the Sun, and vary only by the emissivity of either body,

How do you know they are similar if they are unknown?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Science only uses conflicting evidence.
Only religions use supporting evidence.

And an example of scientific work done well? Anything? Something in thermodynamics perhaps?

Into the Night wrote:...Science isn't a 'method'....Science isn't 'work'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

tmiddles wrote:
You obviously don't know anything about Newton or you'd cite it.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:...Science isn't a 'method'....Science isn't 'work'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

It is called the "Scientific Method" for a reason.

tmiddles wrote:
And it is most certainly work.

tmiddles wrote:
Your definition of science has long since been debunked:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Your definition of science has long since been debunked:

Not my definition, and it has not been debunked. RDCF.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Your definition of science has long since been debunked:

Not my definition, and it has not been debunked. RDCF.

OK where'd you get it? God speak to you? Your Mom? A man on the street in your ITN/IBD oral tradition of learning physics?

I know you can never cite anything published.

Where?