NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference. > Page 9

Page 9 of 16

10-07-2022 00:05
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: I'll be happy to, once you either provide a valid response to one of my questions or . I don't remember reading any meaningful questions, just a bunch of attacks and baseless accusations. How unfortunate. But sure, ask something. simply admit honestly that you don't know anything that you believe about Venus because none of it has ever been verified Well.. How much verification is good enough for you? I understand if only 1 probe landed there. But there was a bunch. Are you saying they all were wrong? Are you saying they all were in the same exact spot? Seems to me that no matter how much data there is, it won't be enough for you. Because you live in a fantasy world of perfect data, but it doesn't exist sadly. Even if what I believe about Venus is wrong, so fn what mate? What's gonna change? You're assuming way too much. Edited on 10-07-2022 00:06
10-07-2022 00:20
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Sugondeez wrote:You're just arguing semantics. Jesus. It's not my fault that you are totally uneducated. Let's begin with the phrase "You're just arguing semantics." What do you think that means? You are using that phrase in the belief that you get to dismiss any argument to which you cannot respond by writing "You're just arguing semantics." You have made it clear that you do not have sufficient education to be contributing to discussions at the adults' table. You cannot intelligently respond to difficult questions. You don't understand the meanings of words. You are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. You never learned the fundamentals of the scientific method. Can you give me any reason I should bother trying to teach you anything? Sugondeez wrote:You're arguing stupid shit for the sake of arguing. This is exactly what you are doing. You are wasting bandwidth out of frustration over wandering through life confused. Sugondeez wrote:I said it's 25C because it's just what the thermometer reads, holy f shit man. Once again, I asked you a specific question on this matter that you ignored. Answer my question or drop the subject. Sugondeez wrote: Obviously I didn't measure every molecule of the air because I don't need that lvl of precision. My question did not involve what you did not do. My question involved what you are claiming to know. My question was a direct response to your bonehead question. All of your comments about my question apply directly to your question. You should have picked up on that. Unfortunately, I was not aware at the time that you aren't that quick on the uptake of anything more subtle than a smack in the face. Sugondeez wrote:Tell me, can you measure the t of a brick? Tell me, can you measure the temperature of a brick in another galaxy? Can you measure the emissivity of a brick in another galaxy? Hint: I covered this already. My response isn't going to change the second time around. Sugondeez wrote:How is a brick different from the earth? Size. Sugondeez wrote:I'd like you to respond to my big post, I'm curious what you have to say about my suggested way of measuring the temp of the surface atmo. ... and I'd love for you to answer some of my questions. All of my questions are simple, easy and straightforward ... and thus far you have ignored all of them. Sugondeez wrote:I'm saying that you'd need somewhere from 15 to 300 thermometers spread evenly across the globe to get a relatively accurate MAST of the earth. Can we agree that you totally suck at statistical math? Actually, let's be more precise and agree that you "abysmally suck", shall we? Sugondeez wrote: A 1000 would be nice but it's not necessary. Can we agree that you are mathematically incompetent? Let's acknowledge for the record that you have gone this far without making a single mention or reference to "margin of error." Anyone not mathematically incompetent would have realized right away that "target margin of error" is the starting point, and you haven't even mentioned it. Sugondeez wrote:Even 30 would do. It doesn't really matter how big the earth is, as long as there are some thermometers on the cold side, some on the hot side and some in between that's enough. Not that difficult is it. Say all of them would take a measurement every minute. Or 10 minutes or even every hour would do. That's it. Not so difficult. Saying that it's impossible is ignorant. When you measure the temp of a brick you don't need to measure the energy of every molecule, same with the earth, you don't need to measure the temp of every sq km. It's not necessary. Let's acknowledge that you wrote this above statement. Let's notice that there is no specification of any target margin of error. This is a clear indication of mathematical incompetence ... ... and the correct answer is "no." We return to our need to establish that you should be taking notes on whatever I tell you and that you shouldn't be pretending to speak with any authority on math. If we could reach a mutual understanding that you have no business commenting on requirements for statistical math, it will make the discussion go so much more smoothly. Sugondeez wrote: LUL dude, did I ever claim to be a scientist? Also that's kinda mean. I never claimed that you claimed to be a scientist, but as we can see, your English reading comprehension is somewhat lacking. I simply made the observation, as conspicuous as it was, that you are no scientist. I requested that you ask me how I know. Also, it doesn't matter that you think my observation is mean. The fact that it is an entirely accurate observation is all that matters. Sugondeez wrote:What religion? Tf are you smoking dude. I never accused you of being smart enough to recognize a religion when it's right in front of you, or even when you have adopted it as personal faith. Sugondeez wrote:Suddenly you're speaking for some unknown number of people. Who are we? Let's add "English reading comprehension" to the list of your serious shortcomings. Go back and re-read. I had created a hypothetical scenario in which you and I were researchers. The "we" would be you and I. You have done an amazing job of convincing me that you slept through high school. It would seem like you don't know anything. Sugondeez wrote: Didn't you accuse tmiddles of doing the same? For others I would be happy to explain how tmiddles uses the Marxist "we" in place of the pronoun "I" in order to give himself a greater perception of authority. I'm not sure, however, that you would understand my words. Sugondeez wrote: I'm not selling anything, definitely not selling any religion, not like I could do that. You're insisting that others accept your beliefs as knowledge, exactly as is done in religions. Again, I'm not expecting you to be able to put two and two together. Why don't we start over? Let's begin by you selecting a margin of error that you find acceptable, and then explaining how someone can measure the earth's temperature to within that margin of error. Again, there are two components: 1. You select your preferred margin of error (this should be a piece of cake; you get choose what that value is and no one else gets any say) 2. You explain how the earth's temperature can be measured to within that margin of error as computed using statistical math. Easy-Peezy-Lemon-Squeezy. The floor is yours.
10-07-2022 00:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Sugondeez wrote:I don't remember reading any meaningful questions, You could tell that all of my questions were meaningful because I was asking them. Sugondeez wrote: just a bunch of attacks and baseless accusations. Of course this brings us right back to your lack of reading comprehension. Sugondeez wrote: I understand if only 1 [uncalibrated and damaged] probe landed there. But there was a bunch [more that were all apparently destroyed]. That's the extent of it, yes. Sugondeez wrote:Are you saying they all were wrong? This is where you post the data that was gathered from all of the probes and you explain why all of it is valid and, more importantly, why it validly supports the conclusions that you are pushing as "what we know." The floor is yours. Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that you have no such data to post and that you have never even seen any such data? This would be an excellent time to revisit the words "religion" and "faith." Sugondeez wrote:Even if what I believe about Venus is wrong, That's the point, though. You can't be pushing your beliefs and speculations as "what we know" when you could very well be very wrong. You are not omniscient. You have not verified beyond mere faith any of what you are pushing, which is certainty in paltry data that you haven't even seen. Why should any rational adult believe as you believe?
10-07-2022 01:06
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	IBdaMann wrote: A bunch of bs, attacks, insults and just mean things that have nothing to do with math or science. How about we make a rule. No insults, no personal attacks, no baseless accusations. Deal? IBdaMann wrote: You're insisting that others accept your beliefs as knowledge, exactly as is done in religions. No, sorry, don't remember doing that. You want to quote me? Let's begin by you selecting a margin of error that you find acceptable, and then explaining how someone can measure the earth's temperature to within that margin of error. Again, there are two components: 1. You select your preferred margin of error (this should be a piece of cake; you get choose what that value is and no one else gets any say) 2. You explain how the earth's temperature can be measured to within that margin of error as computed using statistical math. Easy-Peezy-Lemon-Squeezy. I should say that with the thermometers on the surface we'll be measuring the surface avg temp. No the t of the whole planet. That we could measure by measuring earths outgoing flux and comparing it some objects with known E value and by measuring their t, and placing them at the same d from the sun as the earth (in space obviously). I'd say 0.1 or even 0.01 accuracy in E should be achievable. Not a rocket science, the more test objects we compare the earth to, the better result will be. So it just depends on how well we can measure E for some objects with known E, that we can measure. And on how well we can measure the outgoing flux. Ok, lets say we want 1C accuracy. For the avg surface t. Well now pls explain how many points of measurement you think should we use and why. Also say we're measuring a brick. The margin of error is the margin of error of our thermometer. Sure, the sides of the brick will be a bit colder than the center in some cases, but really it's not that important. After all we just want some number, we don't care about having a perfect measurement which takes into account all small inconsistencies in t. 3 or 4 sensors would give us a great thermal "picture" of a brick. So why I'm saying that 15 sensors would be enough? Well because it doesn't matter that the t can change a lot in 2 km or whatever. Even with 15 sensors we'll get an avg number. The important thing is that they should be placed evenly across the whole globe. You were saying that they all should measure at the same time, well how about they will all measure at the top of every minute. We'll sync them. Seems often enough. Or every 30 seconds even. The weather doesn't change much in 30 seconds. Next, the accuracy should depend on the accuracy of every sensor? (thermometer). We can make them pretty well, so even 0.01 or even 0.001 accuracy for every thermometer is possible. I mean let's take 30 thermometers. They'll give you an avg number. And it'll be pretty good. A 100 is better but even 30 will give you a reasonable guess. I mean say we have 30 sensors, each gives us 0.01C accuracy, 30*0.01 = 0.3 . Good enough.. Now explain what do you mean by statistical math, what are you saying? The math doesn't say anything about the number of sensors we should have. We don't know the t above each sq m of earth, but we don't need to. Explain to me what's wrong here. The most important thing is that no matter how many sensors we have, they should be spread evenly across the globe. The smallest number is 4 i'd say. Since the earth is roughly a ball. You are not omniscient. You have not verified beyond mere faith any of what you are pushing, which is certainty in paltry data that you haven't even seen Since you haven't agreed to the rule yet.. You're just being a moron. I'm not pushing anything. Also I haven't done much research but wiki says that several landers landed, at least 5 successful missions. One of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera_13 You can read it yourself, why are you asking me? Can't you read? Don't you know how to google? You want me to translate from russian? What's your problem? Edited on 10-07-2022 01:15
10-07-2022 01:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Max Planck deceased for 73 years tgoebbles never got the memo; he thinks he just "knows" temperatures of entire planets, justifying his omniscience by mentioning that humans successfully navigated a probe to its death on Venus, hence no data is ever needed for tgoebbles . Let's be honest, the probes on Venus did measure the temp and pressure, No probe on Venus measured the global temperature or the global pressure. Sugondeez wrote: you can't just dismiss the data they gathered. No such data. Sugondeez wrote: I mean you can but it just makes you look like a fool who dismisses everything he doesn't like even if it's actual measurements. There were no actual measurements of global temperature or global pressure. Sugondeez wrote: It's a ridiculous stance to say that specially made equipment totally failed to do the task it was designed to do several times in a row. The equipment was never designed to measure global temperature or pressure. Sugondeez wrote: It's not that hard to simulate 90 atm and 500c on earth to test the thermometers. So you want to test a thermometer using unknown conditions....right. Sugondeez wrote: Stop being ridiculous. (Not sure if that was you or ITN who said that the data is totally unusable, somewhere in some other thread.) I did. 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

10-07-2022 01:51
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Into the Night wrote: No probe on Venus measured the global temperature or the global pressure. I don't want to disappoint you but I never claimed that. Oooof. Sugondeez wrote: you can't just dismiss the data they gathered. >No such data. No there is data and feel free to look at it, pls. https://www.roscosmos.ru/media/files/2022/ven/10..648..45526.izdelie.4v1m.teplovoi.rezim.54.l.pdf https://www.roscosmos.ru/34282/ Actually did a 5 minute google search. Wow. I mean who knows how to google these days, right? >There were no actual measurements of global temperature or global pressure. Good thing I never said there were. Phew.. >The equipment was never designed to measure global temperature or pressure. Never said it was. Damn.. >So you want to test a thermometer using unknown conditions....right. They were known after the first successful mission. Kinda. Good enough. Shit argument. > I did. Great.
10-07-2022 01:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tgoebbles wrote: And that your friend David is named David. That's an abstract concept not a measurement. You are WRONG! That they are called "bricks" is not a measure, but that there are 137 bricks in the pile most certainly is, and I can know it to absolute certainty. . Well you definitely can not. What is a brick? A brick is an artificial stone made of clay and fired, generally rectangular in shape and designed to build walls or roads. It's size may vary. Each brick is a unit when counting bricks. Sugondeez wrote: Isn't a brick an abstract concept too? Somewhat. There are many kinds of bricks. Sugondeez wrote: Sure you can count the bricks That you can. One brick is a unit. Sugondeez wrote: but I for example can say that there's only 136 because the other one is not really a brick bc it's too small/too big/too light/ etc. All of the bricks are different, so you can be sure there is 137 and someone else can be sure there's only 136/ 135.5 because it depends on how you define a brick. I wouldn't say that you can know something to absolute certainty since you can't even for sure count the bricks since all of them are different and some of them might not be true bricks. Some bricks are smaller than others. So how big does a brick need to be to count as a brick? Maybe by weight it's actually 135.9 bricks. Maybe some bricks are too small to be counted as full bricks. I say no brick that's 0.97787 by weight of a full brick can count as a brick. So there's only 134 bricks. So who is right? What is a brick anyway? Or I say there's 136 and a half bricks. Because 1 of them is not big enough to be counted as a full brick. It just depends on how you define a brick. So you definitely can not know with absolute certainty the number of bricks. All of them are slightly different and some may not count as legit bricks. Maybe some have more internal cracks than a brick should have. If you want you can dismiss anything. No, regardless of size, it's a brick. It's a unit. Sugondeez wrote: This is what you do when you're presented with Venus temp measurements, you're (maybe it was ITN, I don't remember) saying they are all bs because "high temps and space travel would damage the thermometers". Space travel DOES damage thermometers, particularly electronic ones used on spacecraft. Unfiltered radiation does a real number on them. Sugondeez wrote: That's just garbage. Nope. Space is a harsh environment. Sugondeez wrote: When you measure the temp in your room and it's say 70F, It is not possible to measure the temperature of a room with a single thermometer. Sugondeez wrote: do you calibrate the thermometer? It's already calibrated IAW the scale used for it. Sugondeez wrote: Ofc no, nobody does. The manufacturer does. Perhaps you should look at the definitions of various temperature scales and the procedure for calibrating a thermometer. Sugondeez wrote: Yet somehow 70f is pretty accurate (it's accurate enough for your purposes of knowing the temp inside. What is "pretty accurate"????!? No, you can't make an absolute measurement that way!!! Sugondeez wrote: You don't measure the temp at the ceiling, at the middle and at the floor and then take an average, it's not needed) It's a good start, but you need more than that. Sugondeez wrote: since the humanity You don't get to speak for everybody. You are not God. Sugondeez wrote: knows how to make relatively accurate thermometers. You are confusing tolerance with margin of error. Sugondeez wrote: It's stupid to assume that people who put thermometers on Venus probes used really shit ones, to the point that all of the measurements are complete crap and can't be used at all. That's ridiculous. They were really good thermometers, but they are failing, being put under the tremendous stresses of space flight, landing (thud!), and the incredible temperatures and caustic atmosphere found there. Sugondeez wrote: Can you measure the length of a shoreline with absolute certainty? You can not. But you can measure it to some degree of accuracy. Paradox. Which is it, dude? Sugondeez wrote: The same was done at Venus (obviously the temp measurements, not length measurements were done). Paradox. Which is it, dude? No. One failing thermometer cannot measure the global temperature of Venus. Sugondeez wrote: So to claim that the temp on Venus is unknown is just stupid and ignorant. You only need 1 measurement (assuming the device is working correctly) to have an idea of what's happening and plenty of measurements were done on Venus. Only one thermometer was sent at a time to Venus. You can't measure the temperature of a planet using only one thermometer, particular one that is failing. Sugondeez wrote: So that's just a crap argument. Denial of mathematics. Sugondeez wrote: You say you need to measure someone to know their height and weight, but dude, the height and the weight of a person are not static, they change even during the day. And and what if the scale was broken? You just need to be reasonable. I used to be a scale like you, but then I took an arrow to the knee. Sugondeez wrote: Also the claim that you can't measure the temp/E of the earth is not really true, you definitely can. No. It is not possible to measure the temperature or the emissivity of Earth. Sugondeez wrote: Can you measure the temp/E of a brick/ball? The Earth isn't the size of a brick or a ball. Sugondeez wrote: The earth is just a big brick. No. The Earth is a planet. Sugondeez wrote: To measure a bricks temp, 1 or 2 thermometers are enough. Maybe, maybe not. Sugondeez wrote: So it definitely can be done. E of the brick def can be measured. No. Not until you accurately know the temperature of the brick. Sugondeez wrote: I'm saying that you'd need somewhere from 15 to 300 thermometers spread evenly across the globe to get a relatively accurate MAST of the earth. That will result in ONE thermometer for an area of 656,666 square miles. No. temperature has been known to change by 20 deg F per mile. The margin of error of such an average is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever measured on Earth. Mathematically, you are GUESSING. Sugondeez wrote: A 1000 would be nice but it's not necessary. That is one thermometer for every 197,000 square miles, or ONE thermometer being used to measure an area greater than California. No. The margin of error is still indicating YOU ARE GUESSING. Sugondeez wrote: Even 30 would do. No, it would not. You are denying mathematics. Sugondeez wrote: It doesn't really matter how big the earth is, as long as there are some thermometers on the cold side, some on the hot side and some in between that's enough. No, it isn't. It is fairly common for temperature to vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. Sugondeez wrote: Not that difficult is it. It's easy for you to discard mathematics. The Church of Global Warming does it all the time. Sugondeez wrote: Say all of them would take a measurement every minute. Or 10 minutes or even every hour would do. That's it. Not so difficult. Academic. It is not possible to take a measurement of the global temperature. Sugondeez wrote: Saying that it's impossible is ignorant. Saying it's possible is ignorant. You are denying mathematics. Sugondeez wrote: When you measure the temp of a brick you don't need to measure the energy of every molecule, same with the earth, you don't need to measure the temp of every sq km. Discard of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Sugondeez wrote: It's not necessary. Obviously, you have no idea what 'temperature' actually is. Sugondeez wrote: The issue would be to fix in place the ones in the oceans though. But it's totally doable Not enough. Sugondeez wrote: Measuring the E shouldn't be that hard, you measure the flux coming off the earth, next you put an object (several obj with different known E values) with known E at the same distance from the sun and measure it's radiant flux and temp, next you compare fluxes, done. No. You cannot measure emissivity that way. Sugondeez wrote: If you can measure the temp and E of a brick, you can measure them for the earth, as a brick and the earth are essentially the same. No, they are NOT the same. 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
10-07-2022 02:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I'm eagerly awaiting your honest response. . I don't understand, it's 25C in my room rn. How do you know? Sugondeez wrote: Will you say that since my thermometer is not calibrated the reading is totally worthless? It's just a thermometer reading. A thermometer that is not calibrated is totally worthless. Sugondeez wrote: We could assume that the numbers from Venus are wrong but they are all we have. So why not assume that they are relatively correct? Why is that such a big deal? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No! You CANNOT circumnavigate mathematics THAT way!!! Sugondeez wrote: It just gives us an understanding of what's happening there. 453C or 456C it's still pretty hot. I don't think you'll argue with that. How do you know? Sugondeez wrote: I'll tell you what. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but if you can land a probe on Venus without it suffering a harsh collision with the surface, that continues operating as designed for a few months after landing, and is capable of performing a successful self-calibration, then I will accept data thereof. This is called being really stubborn for no reason. No, it's called being realistic. Failing instruments can produce all all kinds of wacky readings. Sugondeez wrote: Whatever. It's almost equivalent to saying that I'll accept that the number of bricks is 137 after you take them all apart atom by atom to be sure that none had fake atoms inside and so can't count as real bricks. Pretty ridiculous but nobody can stop you from demanding that. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! There is no such thing as a fake atom!!! An atom is not a brick!!! Sugondeez wrote: It is common sense to acknowledge that equipment under extreme/destructive stress won't function as it was designed. We really should be honest about this. Lol unless it was designed to function under exactly that kind of stress. And it was because there were multiple probes (I think). ...and ALL of them failed within minutes of landing. Many others never survived the caustic atmosphere or the landing. Sugondeez wrote: The design of the car above was road-tested thoroughly before being introduced. It is stupid to imply that one should just religiously assume that a miracle will occur and that the car will continue to perform precisely as it was designed while suffering fatal/destructive stress. Stop being ridiculous and start being honest. That's pretty bad. The car wasn't designed to survive being in a press, it was designed to drive on a road, see the difference? Put a tank in that press and the press probably won't do much. A car begin road tested is NOT a guarantee that it will perform the same as during the test! I've road tested cars myself and something breaks right after the road test! I've seen cars break even when just sitting there! Sugondeez wrote: If the thermometer was designed to last some time on Venus, and it did, what makes you think it was reporting bad data? He already answered this question. So have I. Asking the same question over and over that's already been answered is just mindless. RQAA 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
10-07-2022 02:22
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Into the Night wrote: No, they are NOT the same. How come? Both are bodies. Are you saying a brick is not a body? Or the earth is not a body? Hmmmmmm Into the Night wrote: A lot of stuff No way i'm gonna answer everything but Yet somehow 70f is pretty accurate (it's accurate enough for your purposes of knowing the temp inside. >What is "pretty accurate"????!? No, you can't make an absolute measurement that way!!! Huh, you know how to read? "accurate enough for your purposes of knowing the temp inside". It's absolutely accurate enough for me when i want to know the t in the room. Idgaf about higher accuracy. Find somebody who does, except for you ofc. I'm not making a point about making an absolute measurement, it's just the t inside a room, ofc it's not very accurate, but it's good enough for me. Nobody makes an absolutely accurate measurement of an air temp inside a room, bc why the f would you want to do that? It's just a single thermometer mate, are you hallucinating? Ofc it's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be perfect. Do you know how air works? It moves around and mixes. It's not a solid. So you can indeed have a pretty good idea of an air t inside a room with just a single thermometer, wow, incredible! Truly miraculous I'd say. It's good enough for the purpose of living. Sugondeez wrote: You don't measure the temp at the ceiling, at the middle and at the floor and then take an average, it's not needed) It's a good start, but you need more than that.[quote] The ****? No I don't. You need it. You measure it. It's good enough for me and for a lot of people I'd say. If you don't believe me pls, do some research and ask people about how they measure the temp at the ceiling and at the floor and take an average when they just want to know the t inside a room. I'm sure you'll find a lot. But you gotta measure the amount of ppl, man. You can't just assume. No no no man, can't do that. You can't become a heretic and not obey the glorious TRUE SCIENCE man.
10-07-2022 02:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: You're just arguing semantics. Jesus. You're arguing stupid shit for the sake of arguing. You are describing yourself, dude. You can't project YOUR problems on IBD nor anybody else. Sugondeez wrote: I said it's 25C because it's just what the thermometer reads, holy f shit man. So a thermometer, which you have already admitted is uncalibrated, reads 25 deg C. Big hairy deal. Sugondeez wrote: Obviously I didn't measure every molecule of the air because I don't need that lvl of precision. Wow that's truly incredible. Discard of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Sugondeez wrote: Tell me, can you measure the t of a brick? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: E of a brick? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: How is a brick different from the earth? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: I'd like you to respond to my big post, I'm curious what you have to say about my suggested way of measuring the temp of the surface atmo. RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: I'm saying that you'd need somewhere from 15 to 300 thermometers spread evenly across the globe to get a relatively accurate MAST of the earth. A 1000 would be nice but it's not necessary. Even 30 would do. It doesn't really matter how big the earth is, as long as there are some thermometers on the cold side, some on the hot side and some in between that's enough. Not that difficult is it. Say all of them would take a measurement every minute. Or 10 minutes or even every hour would do. That's it. Not so difficult. Saying that it's impossible is ignorant. When you measure the temp of a brick you don't need to measure the energy of every molecule, same with the earth, you don't need to measure the temp of every sq km. It's not necessary. Also I'm not tmiddles, I literally never posted in this forum before, calm down ok. I'm not him, you don't need to attack me, I'm just saying. Argument by repetition (chanting). He is comparing you to tmiddles, he is not saying you ARE tmiddles. Sugondeez wrote: You aren't a scientist. LUL dude, did I ever claim to be a scientist? Also that's kinda mean. Why is it mean?????!? You ARE sensitive, aren't you? Sugondeez wrote: I'm not buying your religion. What religion? The Church of Global Warming. Sugondeez wrote: Tf are you smoking dude. I don't believe he smokes. I don't smoke. Sugondeez wrote: Like I said, you are being an irrational preacher who is pushing a WACKY religion onto others. Holy ** dude, when did I push something onto you, Yes. The Church of Global Warming. Sugondeez wrote: much less a religion? Calm down The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. Like you, it routinely discards the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and routinely discards statistical and probability mathematics. So far, you have discarded statistical mathematics, and the 0th law of thermodynamics. Sugondeez wrote: we suspect are totally bogus and for which we have no way to verify veracity. Suddenly you're speaking for some unknown number of people. Who are we? Do you mean you? Didn't you accuse tmiddles of doing the same? Hmmmmm I'm not buying your religion. I think you're high, Quackery. Insult fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: I'm not selling anything, You are. You are trying to sell your religion. Sugondeez wrote: definitely not selling any religion, Bald faced lie. Sugondeez wrote: not like I could do that. Bald faced lie. Sugondeez wrote: I think you need to calm down, I'm not trying to sell you any WACKY religion as you say, just making some points that I want to make. Which is selling your religion. No, you must call a spade a spade. You cannot call it a heart. Sugondeez wrote: That's all. Chill ok? I just want to talk You are doing so. No one is stopping you. 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**
10-07-2022 02:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: By the way, let it be known that you were the one that carried the discussion to "deceptive aliens" while I simply adhered to the scientific method. Just for the record. Oh come on now, you're being an ass for no reason. I just brought that up to show you that you're being unreasonable, that's all Trying to redefine 'religion' as 'science' is YOUR problem. You cannot project YOUR problem on anybody else. That's called an inversion fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: Still would like you to respond to my big post about measuring the t and E of the earth. RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Not bc I want to sell you something, but bc I'm fairly certain the earth is a body, just like any other, and that you indeed can measure it's t. Not possible. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: Stuff doesn't work at all, usually. Can't agree with that. It depends. My hammer works fine. My cup works fine. My phone works alright. My TV works fine. My monitor works fine. >Are you starting to get the point? What point? Maybe try making one Contextomy 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
10-07-2022 02:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You don't get to argue both confidence in a probe's normal operation while explaining why it wouldn't work at all. I'll rephrase it a bit. Probes went there in like 1980s. And even today you'd struggle to make a probe that could measure stuff and transmit the signal to earth for a long time under such conditions. That's all I'm saying. Even stuff that was designed for those conditions didn't last long, normal parts wouldn't work there at all. So it's a success that they even measured something. I'm sure there are books about those probes, where it's explained what they put on them, how they designed it and why. Several probes actually landed there and transmitted something. That's a success in my book. You can argue all you want but you actually have some measurements. Are they perfect? No. But it's some info you can use. Or you can be a fanatic of perfect data that only exists in your fantasy. Just saying No probe ever measured the temperature of Venus. 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
10-07-2022 02:40
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Into the Night wrote: You can't measure the temperature of a planet using only one thermometer, particular one that is failing. You see.. I never said you could. Read what I said again. "You only need 1 measurement (assuming the device is working correctly) to have an idea of what's happening" This sounds like a t of a planet to you? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe you should learn to read. One failing thermometer cannot measure the global temperature of Venus. Good bc I never said anything about global t. Huh... No. It is not possible to measure the temperature or the emissivity of Earth. Really? How come? Want to elaborate on why exactly? The Earth isn't the size of a brick or a ball. So what? It somehow makes it unmeasurable? Sounds like bs No. The Earth is a planet. Doesn't matter, both are bodies. That will result in ONE thermometer for an area of 656,666 square miles. No. temperature has been known to change by 20 deg F per mile. The margin of error of such an average is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever measured on Earth. Mathematically, you are GUESSING. It doesn't matter, it will give you a bunch of measurements and you'll get an average. Who said those points are bad? How do you exactly calculate the margin of error? Pls tell me. No, it would not. You are denying mathematics. You'll definitely get a number. An average of 30 sensors placed evenly across the whole globe. Good enough for me. I mean you could do 100, doesn't matter really. How come I'm denying math? Care to explain in detail? It is not possible to take a measurement of the global temperature. Oh yeah? How come? You are denying mathematics. How exactly? Obviously, you have no idea what 'temperature' actually is. So what is it? Not enough. So how many is enough? No. You cannot measure emissivity that way. You definitely can. Edited on 10-07-2022 02:41
10-07-2022 02:44
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Into the Night wrote: The Church of Global Warming. Yikes you are really reaching here buddy. Idk how to tell you but I don't belong to that church, sorry. You are trying to sell your religion. And what is "my religion"? I should say I thought you guys are capable of some normal human discussions, but you are bat shit nuts here. Sheesh. Edited on 10-07-2022 02:49
10-07-2022 02:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Yes, you really do know so much about Venus. Don't remember saying that I know much. I said we know something. There are some measurements. That's about it. How do you know? Sugondeez wrote: You are trying to impose a WACKY religious faith onto others, one that holds that you are somehow omniscient What faith? What are you talking about? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: >that you are somehow omniscient Never claimed that, YES YOU DID! YOU claimed to know the temperature of Venus! Sugondeez wrote: stop drinking so much bro. Quackery. Sugondeez wrote: You're seeing stuff that's not there. You cannot deny your claim of omniscience. That's a fallacy, dude. Sugondeez wrote: You're accusing me of preaching Because you are. Sugondeez wrote: and trying to sell you some religion. Because you are. Sugondeez wrote: What? You are clearly a scientifically illiterate moron who is desperate to appear "thmart." You are attempting to convince others that you are an omniscient genius. Wow you went to insulting me real fast. He'll do that to Church of Global Warming believers. You might as well get used to it. Sugondeez wrote: >You are attempting to convince others that you are an omniscient genius Don't remember doing that. No memory, eh? Denying your own argument, eh? Denial of self argument fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: You have not answered a single question I have posed to you while I have thoroughly answered all of yours. What? Lol you didn't ask me anything man. You're just attacking me. For no reason I should note. He did. Answer the questions put before you. Don't evade. Sugondeez wrote: You have provided no useful information in this thread. You have only shown this board what you strongly believe and how desperate you are for others to believe likewise, to the point that you will insult those who you do not convert to your faith or who remain steadfast in the scientific method. Oy yeah? Actually you are insulting me. Just wow. Maybe you should drink less bc you're literally attacking me when I just want to talk and I'm just asking questions. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No one is preventing you from posting!!! Preaching is not asking questions. Asking questions over and over that have already been answered is mindless. RQAA. (Repetitive Question Already Answered) Sugondeez wrote: I'll be happy to, once you either provide a valid response to one of my questions You haven't asked me anything serious. You're being nitpicky about words. Inversion fallacy. You can't project YOUR problems on anybody else, dude. Sugondeez wrote: > the link Sure, here's the link https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769-s280.php#post_87325 There is no such thing as 'net thermal radiation'. False authority fallacy. Argument by buzzword. Sugondeez wrote: You are clearly a scientifically illiterate moron who is desperate to appear "thmart." You are attempting to convince others that you are an omniscient genius. How would you rate your success on that matter? I think you are demonstrating that you are stupid, uneducated and totally gullible. You have not answered a single question I have posed to you while I have thoroughly answered all of yours. a bunch of nonsense that i'm not going to answer So you freely admit that you are not going to answer his questions put to you. Either you can't (most likely) or you won't because of your stubborn belief in your religion. Sugondeez wrote: You are engaging in dishonest wordplay. No no, you claimed that you can't measure the t of the earth. Because you can't. Sugondeez wrote: So I'm asking you, can you measure the t of a brick? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: How is a brick different from the earth? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Can you measure a box that is in a different galaxy? But the earth is not a box and it's not in a different galaxy. It's right here. whiff Sugondeez wrote: Don't preface the discussion with how much you desperately BELIEVE that the earth's temperature is measurable. We already know just how WACKY your beliefs are. Instead, explain how someone can measure the temperature of the earth to within a specified margin of error. Tf are you talking about. Evasion. Answer the question put to you. I know...you can't. You don't know statistical mathematics. Sugondeez wrote: You somehow know what my beliefs are? Yup. So do I. You certainly made it obvious enough! Sugondeez wrote: I'm starting to think that you are all of that that you blame others of. Weird right? LIF. No, you CANNOT project YOUR problems on anybody else, dude. Sugondeez wrote: Don't preface the discussion with how much you desperately BELIEVE that the earth's temperature is measurable. Why is it not? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: We already know just how WACKY your beliefs are. LOL. WHO ARE WE MATE? IBD. Me (ITN or Into the Night). GFM (or gfm7175). Plus a few others that understand the theories of science you discard, the mathematics you discard, and the religion you preach. Sugondeez wrote: Is there 2 of you? About 4-5 of us at the moment on this forum. Sugondeez wrote: And what are my beliefs? You don't know what your beliefs are????????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sugondeez wrote: How tf do you know? Do you honestly think you are the first one to come here and spew such nonsense???????!? Sugondeez wrote: You are really fantasizing a lot don't you? LIF. You can't project YOUR problems on anybody else, dude. Sugondeez wrote: Instead, explain how someone can measure the temperature of the earth to within a specified margin of error. Read my post, I hope the link works. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Argument by repetition fallacy (chanting). Sugondeez wrote: Remember, I'm not attacking you, I hope you calm down a bit Let's not pretend what the Church of Global Warming wants to do to the economy doesn't exist, okay? Sugondeez wrote: Fcking hell bro. It's a tough life on a climate forum, huh? It can be. You have to contend with people here that understand the science you discard, the mathematics you discard, and the religion you embrace. 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

10-07-2022 02:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I'll be happy to, once you either provide a valid response to one of my questions I've been answering your questions btw. I haven't seen a single answer from you since he asked his questions. Sugondeez wrote: You need to stop drinking, You keep using this phrase. I don't think you understand what it means. Sugondeez wrote: you're claiming to know my beliefs. So do I. You have stated your beliefs. Sugondeez wrote: You're saying that I desperately need something. Yup. You desperately want people to believe in your religion. Sugondeez wrote: How tf do you know what I need? Sheesh. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Because YOU STATED IT!!! Sugondeez wrote: What else do you know about me? My hair color? My height? What I ate for dinner? Really nice telepathic powers man. Reading what YOU STATED is not telepathic powers, dude. Sugondeez wrote: You have only shown this board what you strongly believe and how desperate you are for others to believe likewise Tf dude. Ok. What do I "strongly believe" as you say? I'm all ears. Lol how would you even know that? Do you have some mind reading abilities? Maybe teach me some? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: You are trying to impose a WACKY religious faith onto others Gotta stop smoking that stuff or whatever you're doing, empty accusations mate. How do you even know what I'm "trying to do"? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Chill out a bit, you're really worked up about some religions and beliefs and other crazy stuff, that I desperately need to convince someone (? HUH??? MATE STOP SMOKING OK), wtf, I don't even know what you're accusing me of. RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: The link, again: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769-s280.php#post_87325 Buzzword fallacy (net thermal radiation). Attempted proof by void. 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
10-07-2022 03:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: Tell me IBdaMann , who is claiming omniscience? [quote]Sugondeez wrote: I said there are some measurements of Venus. I didn't say that the avg t of the whole Venus was measured. I just said there are some measurements and asked why you think they are bad? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: And now you are claiming to know my beliefs, to know what I want??, RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: to know what I'm "trying to do"? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Accusing me of some bullshit? Who is claiming omniscience man? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Are you sure it's not you? LIF. Sugondeez wrote: I'm "pushing" something? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Wow you really know a lot about me.. Except you don't. Paradox. 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
10-07-2022 03:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Nice distraction but this is also not a valid response to any of my questions. You haven't asked anything. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Evasion. Answer the questions put to you. Sugondeez wrote: You've just been attacking me and accusing me of some bs. Because you are preaching BS. Sugondeez wrote: What do you want me to answer? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: How to measure the t of the earth? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Read the link. False authority fallacy. Buzzword fallacy. Discard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Sugondeez wrote: If you want to know something else, ask away. You've been mostly attacking me so I don't remember you asking much. Evasion. Answer the questions put to you. Sugondeez wrote: You have stated your beliefs and your faith. Oh yea? And what is it? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: How tf do you know that dude. RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Who is claiming omniscience? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Definitely it's not you.. Oh wait.. You miraculously know my beliefs.. Yikes. LIF. Sugondeez wrote: , or you have admitted that you don't know anything that you believe about Venus because none of it has been verified. Bro how do you know what I believe about it? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: You have no idea. Lie. Sugondeez wrote: All I said is that there are some measurements and that there's no reason to think they are bad. That's all I said. Wake up Argument of the Stone fallacy. Argument by repetition fallacy (chanting). Sugondeez wrote: I didn't say that the t of the whole planet was measured. Lie. Sugondeez wrote: You are dreaming if you think that bc I never said that. Lie. Sugondeez wrote: You need to learn how to talk to people without attacking them. LIF. Sugondeez wrote: And stop trying to think that you know what someone believes in, especially if you have no idea, like you have no idea about my beliefs. He does. So do I. RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: You are clueless clearly, because you wouldn't be attacking me if you knew what I believe in. He does. So do I. RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: I just wanted to ask some questions and you're being an ass for no reason. Redefinition fallacy (preaching<->questioning). 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
10-07-2022 03:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I'll be happy to, once you either provide a valid response to one of my questions or . I don't remember reading any meaningful questions, just a bunch of attacks and baseless accusations. How unfortunate. But sure, ask something. Argument of the Stone. Evasion. Answer the questions put to you. Sugondeez wrote: simply admit honestly that you don't know anything that you believe about Venus because none of it has ever been verified Well.. How much verification is good enough for you? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: I understand if only 1 probe landed there. But there was a bunch. Are you saying they all were wrong? Are you saying they all were in the same exact spot? Seems to me that no matter how much data there is, it won't be enough for you. Because you live in a fantasy world of perfect data, but it doesn't exist sadly. Discard of statistical mathematics. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: Even if what I believe about Venus is wrong, so fn what mate? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: What's gonna change? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: You're assuming way too much. LIF. 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
10-07-2022 03:22
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	Into the Night wrote: YOU claimed to know the temperature of Venus! Nope. Never did. Ooof Sugondeez wrote: Wow you really know a lot about me.. Except you don't. > Paradox. No, that's called sarcasm. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Because YOU STATED IT!!! Really? In that case you should be easily able to quote it. Bc I don't remember saying that I need something. Hmm. There is no such thing as 'net thermal radiation'. False authority fallacy. Argument by buzzword. Mate.. Wake up. That was a link to my own post. Never did I say anything about net thermal radiation. Actually starting to think you might be a bot. Not a good look man.. No no, you claimed that you can't measure the t of the earth. Because you can't. That's a solid argument right there. "You can't". If only every argument was this clear. Good think I asked you man. Wow. Truly great argumentation. He does. So do I. RQAA. Still think that you know what I believe in? Truly delusional. Omniscience much? Edited on 10-07-2022 03:27
10-07-2022 03:27
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Into the Night wrote: Argument of the Stoned. Non sequitur phallacy. Edited on 10-07-2022 03:28
10-07-2022 03:35
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Argument of the Stoned. Non sequitur phallacy. What is even happening here James? Maybe you know? Why are they attacking me for asking some questions.. Wow Did AGW believers hurt them?
10-07-2022 03:43
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Sugondeez wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Argument of the Stoned. Non sequitur phallacy. What is even happening here James? Maybe you know? Why are they attacking me for asking some questions.. Wow Did AGW believers hurt them? In some ways they are harmless. I never had any younger siblings but I've heard some want to be like the older kids in the family. As far as AGW goes, it is a complicated issue. There is natural climate variation and then what is happening to ecosystems. I'll pm you my webpage. They don't know about it and don't need to.
10-07-2022 03:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: A bunch of bs, attacks, insults and just mean things that have nothing to do with math or science. How about we make a rule. No insults, no personal attacks, no baseless accusations. Deal? No deal. You are making personal attacks, baseless accusations, and insults. You are also making shit up. Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You're insisting that others accept your beliefs as knowledge, exactly as is done in religions. No, sorry, don't remember doing that. You want to quote me? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Let's begin by you selecting a margin of error that you find acceptable, and then explaining how someone can measure the earth's temperature to within that margin of error. Again, there are two components: 1. You select your preferred margin of error (this should be a piece of cake; you get choose what that value is and no one else gets any say) 2. You explain how the earth's temperature can be measured to within that margin of error as computed using statistical math. Easy-Peezy-Lemon-Squeezy. I should say that with the thermometers on the surface we'll be measuring the surface avg temp. Math errors: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to use published unbiased raw data. Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to publish margin of error with summary. Logic errors: Special pleading fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument by repetition (chanting). Illiteracy: Use of 'we' for singular possessive. Sugondeez wrote: No the t of the whole planet. Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, dude. Sugondeez wrote: That we could measure by measuring earths outgoing flux and comparing it some objects with known E value and by measuring their t, and placing them at the same d from the sun as the earth (in space obviously). Science errors: discard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Attempt to add reflectivity to emissivity. Math errors: Use of void as independent value. Use of dependent value as independent value. Combining of two independent values as dependent value. Logic errors: False equivalence fallacy. Base rate fallacy. Illiteracy: The Earth is a proper noun. It is capitalized. The Sun is a proper noun. It is capitalized. Missing apostrophe for possessive. Sugondeez wrote: I'd say 0.1 or even 0.01 accuracy in E should be achievable. Math errors: Manufactured (not calculated) margin of error values. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to declare and justify variance. Logic errors: Leaping to conclusion fallacy. Non-sequitur fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: Not a rocket science, Cliche fallacy. Science is not rockets. Sugondeez wrote: the more test objects we compare the earth to, the better result will be. Science errors: Discard of Stefan-Boltzmann law. Attempt to average emissivity. Attempt to combine reflectivity and emissivity. Math errors: Attempt to convert array to scalar. Attempted summary by declaration. Use of void as independent value. Sugondeez wrote: So it just depends on how well we can measure E for some objects with known E, that we can measure. And on how well we can measure the outgoing flux. No, you cannot measure emissivity that way! Sugondeez wrote: Ok, lets say we want 1C accuracy. For the avg surface t. Well now pls explain how many points of measurement you think should we use and why. RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Also say we're measuring a brick. False equivalence. Sugondeez wrote: The margin of error is the margin of error of our thermometer. Redefinition fallacy (tolerance<->margin of error). Sugondeez wrote: Sure, the sides of the brick will be a bit colder than the center in some cases, but really it's not that important. Math errors: discard of independent value to void. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to publish margin of error with summary. Logic errors: Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument from randU fallacy. Attempted proof by contrivance. Sugondeez wrote: After all we just want some number, we don't care about having a perfect measurement which takes into account all small inconsistencies in t. 3 or 4 sensors would give us a great thermal "picture" of a brick. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument from randU fallacy. Attempted proof by void. Sugondeez wrote: So why I'm saying that 15 sensors would be enough? Well because it doesn't matter that the t can change a lot in 2 km or whatever. Even with 15 sensors we'll get an avg number. The important thing is that they should be placed evenly across the whole globe. You were saying that they all should measure at the same time, well how about they will all measure at the top of every minute. We'll sync them. Seems often enough. Or every 30 seconds even. The weather doesn't change much in 30 seconds. Discard of statistical mathematics. Strawman fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: Next, the accuracy should depend on the accuracy of every sensor? (thermometer). We can make them pretty well, so even 0.01 or even 0.001 accuracy for every thermometer is possible. Redefinition fallacy (tolerance<->margin of error). Sugondeez wrote: I mean let's take 30 thermometers. They'll give you an avg number. And it'll be pretty good. A 100 is better but even 30 will give you a reasonable guess. I mean say we have 30 sensors, each gives us 0.01C accuracy, 300.01 = 0.3 . Good enough.. Math errors: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to publish margin of error with summary. Summary by declaration. Logic errors: Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument from randU fallacy (making up numbers and using them as data). Sugondeez wrote:* Now explain what do you mean by statistical math, what are you saying? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: The math doesn't say anything about the number of sensors we should have. YES IT DOES. Sugondeez wrote: We don't know the t above each sq m of earth, but we don't need to. Depends on what you want for your margin of error. Sugondeez wrote: Explain to me what's wrong here. RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: The most important thing is that no matter how many sensors we have, they should be spread evenly across the globe. The smallest number is 4 i'd say. Since the earth is roughly a ball. Margin of error too high. You're GUESSING. Sugondeez wrote: You are not omniscient. You have not verified beyond mere faith any of what you are pushing, which is certainty in paltry data that you haven't even seen Since you haven't agreed to the rule yet.. You're just being a moron. Well...there goes THAT treaty!!! Sugondeez wrote: I'm not pushing anything. Lie. Sugondeez wrote: Also I haven't done much research Obvious. Sugondeez wrote: but wiki says No, you cannot use Wikipedia here as a reference. Sugondeez wrote: that several landers landed, at least 5 successful missions. Incomplete argument. Attempted proof by void. Sugondeez wrote: One of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera_13 Ignored. No probe is better than any other probe. Special pleading fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: You can read it yourself, why are you asking me? False authority fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: Can't you read? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Don't you know how to google? Google is not God. Sugondeez wrote: You want me to translate from russian? Illiteracy: 'Russian' is a proper noun. It is capitalized. Sugondeez wrote: What's your problem? RQAA. 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
10-07-2022 03:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: Into the Night wrote: No probe on Venus measured the global temperature or the global pressure. I don't want to disappoint you but I never claimed that. Oooof. Lie. Sugondeez wrote: Sugondeez wrote: you can't just dismiss the data they gathered. >No such data. No there is data and feel free to look at it, pls. https://www.roscosmos.ru/media/files/2022/ven/10..648..45526.izdelie.4v1m.teplovoi.rezim.54.l.pdf https://www.roscosmos.ru/34282/ There is no data of the temperature of Venus. These readings were also taken by failing equipment. Sugondeez wrote: Actually did a 5 minute google search. Wow. I mean who knows how to google these days, right? Engineering errors: Assumption of correctly working equipment in harsh conditions. Logic errors: Attempted proof by Holy Link. Pivot fallacy. Illiteracy: Google is a proper noun. It is capitalized. Sugondeez wrote: >There were no actual measurements of global temperature or global pressure. Good thing I never said there were. Phew.. Lie. Sugondeez wrote: >The equipment was never designed to measure global temperature or pressure. Never said it was. Damn.. Lie. Sugondeez wrote: >So you want to test a thermometer using unknown conditions....right. They were known after the first successful mission. Kinda. Good enough. Shit argument. Engineering errors: Assumption of working equipment in harsh conditions. Logic errors: Argument from randU fallacy (making up numbers). Argument of the Stone fallacies. Attempted proof by void. 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
10-07-2022 03:58
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	James_ wrote: Sugondeez wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Argument of the Stoned. Non sequitur phallacy. What is even happening here James? Maybe you know? Why are they attacking me for asking some questions.. Wow Did AGW believers hurt them? In some ways they are harmless. I never had any younger siblings but I've heard some want to be like the older kids in the family. As far as AGW goes, it is a complicated issue. There is natural climate variation and then what is happening to ecosystems. I'll pm you my webpage. They don't know about it and don't need to. Not gonna ask you to define climate ) , but don't count on me to believe in AGW stuff. But I'll take a look, sure. Idk it's just nice to talk to someone who acts like a normal person. ITN and IBDM, don't be salty, I just prefer not being attacked. I believe in treating others nicely even if you don't agree with them (and I'm not really in disagreement with you, but you like arguing so much I guess that you didn't even bother to ask about my opinion on AGW.. Oh well can't blame you.)
10-07-2022 04:02
Sugondeez ☆☆☆☆☆ (21)	ITN wrote: No deal. You are making personal attacks, baseless accusations, and insults. Uhm.. The deal wasn't exactly offered to you, was it? Math errors: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to publish margin of error with summary. Summary by declaration. Just tell me what the right way is. Just explain it. What's the right math? I'm listening. So far you haven't explained anything Also learn to read, it's right there if you just continue reading. >Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to publish margin of error with summary. How do you calculate that? How about you tell me? Clearly you know the right way to do it. Edited on 10-07-2022 04:06
10-07-2022 04:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: Into the Night wrote: No, they are NOT the same. How come? Both are bodies. Are you saying a brick is not a body? Or the earth is not a body? Hmmmmmm Pivot fallacy. You are failing to consider other aspects of bricks and Earth that is NOT the same (again). Sugondeez wrote: Into the Night wrote: A lot of stuff No way i'm gonna answer everything but Yet somehow 70f is pretty accurate (it's accurate enough for your purposes of knowing the temp inside. >What is "pretty accurate"????!? No, you can't make an absolute measurement that way!!! Huh, you know how to read? "accurate enough for your purposes of knowing the temp inside". It's absolutely accurate enough for me when i want to know the t in the room. Circular definition. Circular argument fallacy. You cannot define a buzzword with a buzzword. Sugondeez wrote: Idgaf about higher accuracy. Find somebody who does, except for you ofc. You never specified accuracy required. Sugondeez wrote: I'm not making a point about making an absolute measurement, Lie. Sugondeez wrote: it's just the t inside a room, ofc it's not very accurate, but it's good enough for me. Okay. It's good enough for you. What accuracy is good enough for you? Sugondeez wrote: Nobody makes an absolutely accurate measurement of an air temp inside a room, I will call this argument 1. Sugondeez wrote: bc why the f would you want to do that? Certain cases require high accuracy. I actually build sensors as a business. Sugondeez wrote: It's just a single thermometer mate, So you said. Sugondeez wrote: are you hallucinating? Are you saying that what you said is a hallucination??????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sugondeez wrote: Ofc it's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be perfect. Define 'perfect'. Sugondeez wrote: Do you know how air works? Of course. I also design, build, fly, and repair aircraft. Sugondeez wrote: It moves around and mixes. It's not a solid. Never said it was. Sugondeez wrote: So you can indeed have a pretty good idea of an air t inside a room with just a single thermometer, wow, incredible! I will call this argument 2. You are now locked in yet another paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. Sugondeez wrote: Truly miraculous I'd say. It's good enough for the purpose of living. Living doesn't require thermometers, other than the few cells in your body that perform that function (for human beings). Sugondeez wrote: Sugondeez wrote: You don't measure the temp at the ceiling, at the middle and at the floor and then take an average, it's not needed) It's a good start, but you need more than that.[quote] The **? No I don't. Okay. You want to ignore the quite probably higher temperature there. Do you know how air works? Do you know what convection is? Sugondeez wrote: You need it. You measure it. I do for those cases requiring more accuracy. Sugondeez wrote: It's good enough for me and for a lot of people I'd say. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You don't get to speak for everybody. You are not God! Sugondeez wrote: If you don't believe me pls, do some research and ask people about how they measure the temp at the ceiling and at the floor and take an average when they just want to know the t inside a room. I'm sure you'll find a lot. But you gotta measure the amount of ppl, man. You can't just assume. I make sensors for a living, including thermometers. I actually DO the research and speak with the client on the desired accuracy they want for the thing they are measuring (including possibly a room). Sugondeez wrote: No no no man, can't do that. You can't become a heretic and not obey the glorious TRUE SCIENCE man. Science has no True no False. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That is all. Nothing more. You so far have discarded two of those theories: The 0th law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You almost discarded the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this post, but not quite. I suspect it will be the next victim of your religion. 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**
10-07-2022 04:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: Into the Night wrote: You can't measure the temperature of a planet using only one thermometer, particular one that is failing. You see.. I never said you could. Read what I said again. "You only need 1 measurement (assuming the device is working correctly) to have an idea of what's happening" Irrational. You are still locked in this paradox. Which is it, dude? Sugondeez wrote: This sounds like a t of a planet to you? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe you should learn to read. Irrational. You are still locked in this paradox. Which is it, dude? Sugondeez wrote: One failing thermometer cannot measure the global temperature of Venus. Good bc I never said anything about global t. Huh... Lie. Sugondeez wrote: No. It is not possible to measure the temperature or the emissivity of Earth. Really? How come? Want to elaborate on why exactly? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: The Earth isn't the size of a brick or a ball. So what? It somehow makes it unmeasurable? Sounds like bs RQAA Sugondeez wrote: No. The Earth is a planet. Doesn't matter, both are bodies. Pivot fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: That will result in ONE thermometer for an area of 656,666 square miles. No. temperature has been known to change by 20 deg F per mile. The margin of error of such an average is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever measured on Earth. Mathematically, you are GUESSING. It doesn't matter, it will give you a bunch of measurements and you'll get an average. Who said those points are bad? Discard of statistical mathematics. RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: How do you exactly calculate the margin of error? Pls tell me. I am not going to write a book here. Go learn statistical mathematics. Sugondeez wrote: No, it would not. You are denying mathematics. You'll definitely get a number. An average of 30 sensors placed evenly across the whole globe. Good enough for me. I mean you could do 100, doesn't matter really. How come I'm denying math? Care to explain in detail? RQAA. Argument from randU fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: It is not possible to take a measurement of the global temperature. Oh yeah? How come? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: You are denying mathematics. How exactly? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Obviously, you have no idea what 'temperature' actually is. So what is it? Go learn the 0th law of thermodynamics, which defines the concept of 'temperature' (and the meaning of the word). Sugondeez wrote: Not enough. So how many is enough? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: No. You cannot measure emissivity that way. You definitely can. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No, you cannot DISCARD the Stefan-Boltzmann law and get away with it, dude! 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
10-07-2022 04:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Church of Global Warming. Yikes you are really reaching here buddy. Idk how to tell you but I don't belong to that church, sorry. Lie. Sugondeez wrote: You are trying to sell your religion. And what is "my religion"? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: I should say I thought you guys are capable of some normal human discussions, but you are bat shit nuts here. Sheesh. Psychoquackery. Insult fallacies. No argument presented. 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

10-07-2022 04:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14414)	Sugondeez wrote:How about we make a rule. No insults, no personal attacks, no baseless accusations. Deal? OK, so you are interested in a rational discussion concerning the temperature of the earth. Great. I'm more than happy to teach you the science and math involved in that effort. Let's just agree that I am the one who is teaching you, and you avoid pretending to "correct" me on the math and the science, lest we have to repeat our previous conversation and reestablish that I am teaching you and not the other way around. To that end, let's walk you through what is required in order to take such a temperature of the earth. Let's create a scenario in which you are a vice president of a commercial organization that would benefit from marketing several amazing products that depend on knowing the accurate global temperature. You have been chartered to head this task force and I have been assigned to advise you. Foreshadowing: In the end, you will be reporting back to the board that it is not practical to pursue this effort, that you do not have enough budget to even make it possible. So, as we get started, I introduce myself as your advisor and I tell you that the first thing you are going to need to do is establish your target margin of error. The target margin of error will dictate the data collection plan. The data collection plan will determine how much of what equipment you will need. So what margin of error do you pick? . Attached image: Edited on 10-07-2022 04:25
10-07-2022 04:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: Into the Night wrote: YOU claimed to know the temperature of Venus! Nope. Never did. Ooof Lie. Sugondeez wrote: Sugondeez wrote: Wow you really know a lot about me.. Except you don't. > Paradox. No, that's called sarcasm. A paradox is irrational. It is not sarcasm. You MUST discard one of your conflicting arguments and never use it again. That is the only way you can clear any paradox. Sugondeez wrote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Because YOU STATED IT!!! Really? In that case you should be easily able to quote it. Bc I don't remember saying that I need something. Hmm. Denial of self argument fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: There is no such thing as 'net thermal radiation'. False authority fallacy. Argument by buzzword. Mate.. Wake up. That was a link to my own post. Never did I say anything about net thermal radiation. Lie. Sugondeez wrote: Actually starting to think you might be a bot. Not a good look man.. You just failed the Turing test. YOUR problem is YOUR problem. You YOU can correct it. Sugondeez wrote: No no, you claimed that you can't measure the t of the earth. Because you can't. That's a solid argument right there. "You can't". If only every argument was this clear. Good think I asked you man. Wow. Truly great argumentation. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: He does. So do I. RQAA. Still think that you know what I believe in? RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Truly delusional. Omniscience much? Psychoquackery. Argument of the Stone fallacy. LIF. 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
10-07-2022 04:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Argument of the Stoned. Non sequitur phallacy. What is even happening here James? Maybe you know? Why are they attacking me for asking some questions.. Wow Did AGW believers hurt them? RQAA. 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
10-07-2022 04:28
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Into the Night wrote: Sugondeez wrote: IBdaMann wrote: A bunch of bs, attacks, insults and just mean things that have nothing to do with math or science. How about we make a rule. No insults, no personal attacks, no baseless accusations. Deal? No deal. You are making personal attacks, baseless accusations, and insults. You are also making shit up. Has a virus gotten into your guy's malware programming? Because "Shadow Warriors" exist into the night, are they really people? Can they define who they are fighting for and why? Or are they just lashing out at anything in the darkness of their own minds? Villains of their own creation and imagination?
10-07-2022 04:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	James_ wrote: Sugondeez wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Argument of the Stoned. Non sequitur phallacy. What is even happening here James? Maybe you know? Why are they attacking me for asking some questions.. Wow Did AGW believers hurt them? In some ways they are harmless. I never had any younger siblings but I've heard some want to be like the older kids in the family. As far as AGW goes, it is a complicated issue. There is natural climate variation Climate has no value associated with it. There is nothing to vary. James_ wrote: and then what is happening to ecosystems. Define 'ecosystem'. Buzzword fallacy. James_ wrote: I'll pm you my webpage. They don't know about it and don't need to. Censorship doesn't work, dude. 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
10-07-2022 04:33
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: Sugondeez wrote:How about we make a rule. No insults, no personal attacks, no baseless accusations. Deal? OK, so you are interested in a rational discussion concerning the temperature of the earth. Great. I'm more than happy to teach you the science and math involved in that effort. Let's just agree that I am the one who is teaching you, and you avoid pretending to "correct" me on the math and the science, lest we have to repeat our previous conversation and reestablish that I am teaching you and not the other way around. To that end, let's walk you through what is required in order to take such a temperature of the earth. Let's create a scenario in which you are a vice president of a commercial organization that would benefit from marketing several amazing products that depend on knowing the accurate global temperature. You have been chartered to head this task force and I have been assigned to advise you. Foreshadowing: In the end, you will be reporting back to the board that it is not practical to pursue this effort, that you do not have enough budget to even make it possible. So, as we get started, I introduce myself as your advisor and I tell you that the first thing you are going to need to do is establish your target margin of error. The target margin of error will dictate the data collection plan. The data collection plan will determine how much of what equipment you will need. So what margin of error do you pick? . One slight issue. Certain organic isotopes can be radio carbon dated by the material around them. The abundance or lack of are known to show how the flora in a region has fared. In cooler weather there are fewer seeds and pollen than with warmer weather. Just basic science.
10-07-2022 04:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: James_ wrote: Sugondeez wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Argument of the Stoned. Non sequitur phallacy. What is even happening here James? Maybe you know? Why are they attacking me for asking some questions.. Wow Did AGW believers hurt them? In some ways they are harmless. I never had any younger siblings but I've heard some want to be like the older kids in the family. As far as AGW goes, it is a complicated issue. There is natural climate variation and then what is happening to ecosystems. I'll pm you my webpage. They don't know about it and don't need to. Not gonna ask you to define climate ) , He can't. Sugondeez wrote: but don't count on me to believe in AGW stuff. You already believe in AGW stuff. Sugondeez wrote: But I'll take a look, sure. Idk it's just nice to talk to someone who acts like a normal person. James?????!? A normal person????????!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Sugondeez wrote: ITN and IBDM, don't be salty, I just prefer not being attacked. Then stop asking the same questions over and over that have already been answered. Answer the questions put to you. Stop discarding mathematics and science. Sugondeez wrote: I believe in treating others nicely even if you don't agree with them (and I'm not really in disagreement with you, Lie. Sugondeez wrote: but you like arguing so much I guess that you didn't even bother to ask about my opinion on AGW. I already know. You have stated it quite clearly. Sugondeez wrote: Oh well can't blame you.) But you do. 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
10-07-2022 04:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	Sugondeez wrote: ITN wrote: No deal. You are making personal attacks, baseless accusations, and insults. Uhm.. The deal wasn't exactly offered to you, was it? You made an offer of a treaty (the 'deal') which you never intended to keep, then broke it almost immediately. Sugondeez wrote: Math errors: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to publish margin of error with summary. Summary by declaration. Just tell me what the right way is. Just explain it. What's the right math? I'm listening. So far you haven't explained anything RQAA. Sugondeez wrote: Also learn to read, it's right there if you just continue reading. Denial of self argument fallacy. Sugondeez wrote: >Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to publish margin of error with summary. How do you calculate that? How about you tell me? Clearly you know the right way to do it. RQAA. 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
10-07-2022 05:59
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Hi Sugondeez. Welcome to the forum.I see you have met IBDm and ITN.I will open with my personal Faith first.I first became interested in the climate debate in April of 2019 when a young hippie chick stated there's too much CO2 and its making the planet hot and its all bad man.I said is it and then have studied this claim ever since.I have been attacked by IBDm and ITN similar to what has just happened to you even though I have said I was here to learn more.I have left once because it was starting to affect my real life however I have failed to find a similar forum that was not pay for or stopped in 2016.Here is what I believe to be true at this point in time .CO2 levels have gone up since the first measure at Mauna Loa in the mid 50s .I have owned a CO2 meter for a while and it fluctuates from 380ppm-420ppm and lately is showing a downward trend. On a stormy day it does not go over 250pp. .my measurement dont count.I can see Perth city to the South and if it is a Southerly wind the readings are higher. .I agree with many scientists I have watched that sure CO2 can radiate Infra red light or heat but its real affect on the atmosphere is minimal at best .I have done the greenhouse test myself with one at 3000 ppm for 30 minutes in the direct sun and recorded no increase in temperature.The mythbusters did it inside a warehouse with heatlamps and gained .7C increase but the CO2 concentration was calculated to 75000 ppm .I am breathing out 7000-8000 ppm 24/7.The people who wish to lower the CO2 should stop breathing.I have solved 2 problems in one go. .On topic Probes did go to Venus.probes are orbiting Venus now.More will be sent.There is data being collected.It is warmer than Earth.The atmosphere has more CO2.Like a lot more My take on IBDm and ITN This is their world you as a puny human will not last long. .Any information that may disprove their faith is assaulted and you will be called derogatory things for daring to think out the box till you give up and leave Examples .Fossil fuel.Even though everyone uses this term you will be told that fossils do not burn insinuating that you are claiming long dead bones burn however I led them up the path a bit and referred to coal as old dead trees and animals to which I have been reliably informed no human knows where coal comes from.My wife said ask them where diamonds come from.I have seen coal and sometimes you can still see the wood grain in it and bits of leaves and stuff to agree to this means its reasonable to call coal a fossil fuel but we cant have that now can we. .The USA election.There was some dodgy stuff going on there like the appointed counters being ordered from the room and then coming back and there are thousands of Democrat votes.I do not agree with postal voting if you cant get your ass to the booth for 1 hour of your life you do not get to vote.Tell them you are a Democrat and love it.You will get some veins popping on that one .I have plenty more but will finish with I have learned a lot from ITN and IBDm however I have a different interpretation of the laws of Physics which are used a lot as a denial mechanism and proof that nothing can ever change.The best short clip I have witnessed was from an scientist from some Eastern bloc country who has specialized in the affects of temperature at a molecular level for over 30 years.In the beginning it appears that he is going to agree to the horror of AGW but he goes on to explain how complicated our chaotic weather systems are and shrugs and states we do not know because it is not possible to calculate. .I agree it is not possible to measure the absolute average temperature of the planet and then to claim it is increasing .25.C decade. .Using the same unreliable devices the warming would have appeared to of stopped for the last 10 years.What now?Regards Duncan .
10-07-2022 06:38
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	What was the first probe on Venus? Venera 7 On Dec. 15, 1970, Venera 7 was the first spacecraft to make a soft landing on Venus. The spacecraft transmitted information for 23 minutes on the surface before succumbing to the heat and pressure. Five years later, Venera 9 was the first to send back pictures from the surface.25 Mar 2019 .Is this a work of fiction?

Page 9 of 16

Join the debate NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Van Allen radiation belts and the Tropopause	5	06-01-2024 23:46
The government now wants everyone to ALWAYYS use their real name when using the net	20	18-11-2023 22:35
Anyone explain how does N2 and O2 don't absorb electromagnetic radiation?	49	02-02-2023 01:23
Under Dorsey the FBI literally determined everything that Twitter was allowed to put on the net	3	03-01-2023 19:25
Net Metering	7	10-12-2020 14:37