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 11

Page 11 of 16

13-07-2022 06:17
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: I concur.A recent trip to Antarctica had scientist drill a hole 700 metres deep where the ice meets the land and measure the sea temperature and the horror.It was plus 2.C problem is it was the first time this has ever been done.What should it be?If it was 0 it would be starting to freeze Ocean water does not freeze at zero deg C. If freezes around -2 deg C. The temperature of ocean water is not uniform. I totally agree and I use this when talking to warmazombies that I could get over a million temperature readings from here to Rottnest Island which is an Island of Fremantle about 25 Km and NASA claim to know the absolute ocean temperature at all times?I did say starting to freeze not frozen.I am aware if you just have water in your car radiator it will boil easier than if you have the correct coolant.If you change the composition of stuff other changes occur.It is a common practise here in Perth to pack up the car and go North for the better weather and quality fishing the North West offers.I went with a buddy once and he explained how cold energy works.His technique was to start freezing down 1 litre milk cartons 3-4 months before going and get the ice down to -19 or so as you can pull 10 degrees keeping your stuff cold in a box and it is still ice.He made a box out of 100mm foam panel as that is the optimum thickness to insulate.He liked to drink beer out of bottles so his way was to start the generator in the afternoon and put the beers he wished to chill on the rack in the freezer not directly on the frozen ice blocks and leave them for hour and a half and they would chill then put them in the esky.We would run the freezer for another hour to get the hot air down then turn it all off till the next day.You have the option to run the generator for longer but now you need to cart more fuel.This bloke had it down to a fine art and could camp on the beach for a month and still come home with ice duncan61
13-07-2022 06:20
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So a quick review of duncan61's posts will find him mocking people for believing in Global Warming, and then find him expressing the exact same beliefs with certainty ... except with gravity being the culprit. Not so fast there IBdaMann. I ran across this little gem while I was learning how NOAA is wasting our money. Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) NASA satellites that detect small changes in the Earth's gravitational field caused by the redistribution of water on and beneath the land surface. Now if gravity suddenly increases, and you know exactly when and where it's going to happen, that compression of the atmosphere is enough to sizzle a steak. Pick up Sven and head to my place for Gravity Recovery ribeyes! Wups. No way to increase gravity by redistributing mass. You have to have additional mass from somewhere. Damnit. No matter what I try, I can't seem to harness that "gravity energy". Propane it is. I have no comment on this as it is getting nonsensical. duncan61
13-07-2022 06:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:I have no comment on this as it is getting nonsensical. ... especially that part about gravity increasing temperature.
13-07-2022 09:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: I concur.A recent trip to Antarctica had scientist drill a hole 700 metres deep where the ice meets the land and measure the sea temperature and the horror.It was plus 2.C problem is it was the first time this has ever been done.What should it be?If it was 0 it would be starting to freeze Ocean water does not freeze at zero deg C. If freezes around -2 deg C. The temperature of ocean water is not uniform. I totally agree and I use this when talking to warmazombies that I could get over a million temperature readings from here to Rottnest Island which is an Island of Fremantle about 25 Km and NASA claim to know the absolute ocean temperature at all times?I did say starting to freeze not frozen. It will not start to freeze at 0 deg C. duncan61 wrote: I am aware if you just have water in your car radiator it will boil easier than if you have the correct coolant. Nope. It doesn't boil even at 100 deg C as long as pressure is maintained. duncan61 wrote: If you change the composition of stuff other changes occur. You create energy out of nothing, dude. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. duncan61 wrote: It is a common practise here in Perth to pack up the car and go North for the better weather and quality fishing the North West offers. Random statement. No apparent coherency. duncan61 wrote: I went with a buddy once and he explained how cold energy works. No such thing. duncan61 wrote: His technique was to start freezing down 1 litre milk cartons 3-4 months before going and get the ice down to -19 or so as you can pull 10 degrees keeping your stuff cold in a box and it is still ice. Cold is not energy. duncan61 wrote: He made a box out of 100mm foam panel as that is the optimum thickness to insulate.He liked to drink beer out of bottles so his way was to start the generator in the afternoon and put the beers he wished to chill on the rack in the freezer not directly on the frozen ice blocks and leave them for hour and a half and they would chill then put them in the esky.We would run the freezer for another hour to get the hot air down then turn it all off till the next day.You have the option to run the generator for longer but now you need to cart more fuel.This bloke had it down to a fine art and could camp on the beach for a month and still come home with ice Random wanderings. No apparent coherency. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-07-2022 10:41
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I am sharing a story about how a mate keeps things cold camping on a beach a long way from civilisation.

13-07-2022 10:45
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I have no comment on this as it is getting nonsensical. ... especially that part about gravity increasing temperature. Do you think you will ever stop going on about gravity causing temperature increase.I did not get that from Petes post.I became aware that gravity affects the density of the atmosphere which take time to heat and cool and makes the planet habitable.I share this with people because it makes sense and it had not occurred to me before duncan61
13-07-2022 20:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:Do you think you will ever stop going on about gravity causing temperature increase. Not as long as you keep believing that crap and for becoming a total ashsole when the egregious errors of your arguments are pointed out. You are a moron who pretends to insult others who correct you. You richly deserve to be mocked for the stupid things you write. You claim all of the exact same crap as warmizombies but you attribute gravity as the culprit ... and then you play coy in pretense that you somehow don't believe anything silly. You are a total intellectual coward who EVADES questions because you know full well that you can't respond to them in any intelligent manner, and instead you reply with insults and jabs that intentionally misrepresent the positions of others. That makes you a liar as well. You are an uneducated dullard and gullible tool who thinks WACKY dogma "makes perfect sense." You are an ashsole as your only defense ... after which you rush to play the victim. ... so yeah, I will continue to mock you as long as you spout your stupid religion and intentionally misrepresent the positions of others. Notice that I can be totally HONEST in doing so. Perhaps you would like to reconsider how you want to go forward. Perhaps you'd like to reevaluate your arguments to make them correct and relevant. Perhaps you'd like to become honest, if only for a few posts. duncan61 wrote:I did not get that from Petes post. I think you did, and that you are lying about it now. I think you OBEY Pete Rogers and believe whatever he tells you to believe. I know that no matter how much I pointed out his egregious errors, you rushed to his defense in saying that all of his errors "make perfect sense." Not only will you not acknowledge any of Pete Rogers' errors as errors, but you flat out insisted that he did not argue things that I quoted and put in front of you. You cuddled up to Pete Rogers to show him that you wanted him to bend you over furniture while simultaneously running interference for him with his conflation of verb tenses. Say it with me: "It all makes perfect sense." For anybody who would like to take a stroll down memory lane: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/global-warming-is-not-anthropogenic-d6-e3241-s640.php#post_70224 https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/global-warming-is-not-anthropogenic-d6-e3241-s200.php#post_61612 https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/global-warming-is-not-anthropogenic-d6-e3241-s320.php#post_62209 ... and this unrelated gem: James___ on 08-09-2020 09:28 wrote: Pete, [IBDaMann] gets his observations from GasGuzzler. And he is speaking for himself when he quotes GasGuzzler.
14-07-2022 09:08
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Tell me how you really feel.I am listening to Dr. Don Easterbrook - Prof. Emeritus of Geology, Western Washington State and it is a good listen.
14-07-2022 17:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:Tell me how you really feel. With my hands, like everybody else. duncan61 wrote:I am listening to Dr. Don Easterbrook - Prof. Emeritus of Geology, Western Washington State and it is a good listen. So, that's who is doing your thinking for you. You heard "credentials" and that was good enough for you. Well, now everybody knows who is actually speaking when you write something. So duncan, is this the guy whose words you regurgitate? Dr. Easterbrook received BS, MS, and PhD degrees in geology from the University of Washington and taught for 40 years at Western Washington University where he has conducted research on ancient and recent global climate change in western North America, New Zealand, Argentina, and various other parts of the world. If so, how exactly did he conduct this acient climate research which I suppose he teaches? Does he have a time machine or something? I notice that he has written a dozen books,185 papers in professional journals, and has presented 30 research papers at international meetings in over 12 countries. In the past decade, he has published five books and 35 peer–reviewed papers in professional scientific journals. ... so what is his unambiguous definition of the global climate? Surely he has included that in at least one of his books, if not throughout his published papers in professional scientific journals, right? After all, he's not simply spouting off gibberish to gullible audiences, is he? .
14-07-2022 19:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: I am sharing a story about how a mate keeps things cold camping on a beach a long way from civilisation. Why? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
14-07-2022 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote:I have no comment on this as it is getting nonsensical. ... especially that part about gravity increasing temperature. Do you think you will ever stop going on about gravity causing temperature increase. He probably won't. I see no reason why he should yet. duncan61 wrote: I did not get that from Petes post. Actually, you DID. duncan61 wrote: I became aware that gravity affects the density of the atmosphere which take time to heat and cool and makes the planet habitable.I share this with people because it makes sense and it had not occurred to me before This is the first time you've made this argument. It's not quite correct, but you're getting there. It really makes no difference if the atmosphere is denser at the surface than at altitude. Mass is mass. It takes time for mass to heat or cool. All a denser atmosphere at the surface does is improve conductive heat from the surface to the atmosphere. This, of course, cools the surface. It also improves conductive heat from the atmosphere to the surface. This, of course, heats the surface. Heat only flows from hot to cold. The atmosphere can ONLY heat the surface if it happens to be warmer than the surface itself (fairly rare, but sometimes happens, especially at night). Globally, the surface heats the atmosphere. It is warmer and denser than the atmosphere. ALL of it radiates light into space...surface, atmosphere, all of it. That cools the surface AND the atmosphere. No gas or vapor can prevent that. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-07-2022 01:39
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:He probably won't. I see no reason why he should yet. On this point, I have a question. Doesn't the side of the ISS that faces the sun have one (rather hot) temperature while the other side is of a different (rather cold) temperature? Since both sides are in zero gravity, shouldn't both sides be freezing? I say we ask duncan. @duncan, why aren't both sides of the ISS freezing since both are in zero gravity? If you don't know the answer, perhaps you can contact Pete Rogers and get an answer from him and then share it with us. Thanks in advance. .
15-07-2022 02:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:He probably won't. I see no reason why he should yet. On this point, I have a question. Doesn't the side of the ISS that faces the sun have one (rather hot) temperature while the other side is of a different (rather cold) temperature? Since both sides are in zero gravity, shouldn't both sides be freezing? I say we ask duncan. @duncan, why aren't both sides of the ISS freezing since both are in zero gravity? If you don't know the answer, perhaps you can contact Pete Rogers and get an answer from him and then share it with us. Thanks in advance. . Actually, they are not in zero gravity. The ISS has mass. All portions of the ISS are attracted to the center of that mass. Newton actually discussed this kind of thing in The Principia. The ISS is also in orbit around Earth, due to a combination of gravity and it's speed relative to the barycenter between Earth and ISS (essentially the center of the Earth). Yet one side is freezing and one side is roasting. So, Duncan, why is this? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-07-2022 02:47
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Into the Night wrote:Actually, they are not in zero gravity. The ISS has mass. Well, there are various ways to look at this. Are you claiming that the mass of the ISS is accelerating in a particular direction? Into the Night wrote:The ISS is also in orbit around Earth, due to a combination of gravity and it's speed relative to the barycenter between Earth and ISS (essentially the center of the Earth). Yes. The sum of forces equals zero. Therefore there is no difference between this and zero gravity. This is why a candle will not burn on the ISS. ... unless, perhaps, you can think of a difference. Into the Night wrote:Yet one side is freezing and one side is roasting. So, Duncan, why is this? Maybe this is that difference! Maybe gravity is being "balanced out" to zero by the negative work generated by the temperature differential between the two sides, which is caused by the cold side having negative gravity and the hot side having "equal and opposite" positive gravity. Maybe ATE is just a theological name for thermal capacitance. This follows the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and allows for ozone depletion, but this gets into quantum mechanics. This is basic stuff, really, how do you not know this? .
15-07-2022 08:47
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:He probably won't. I see no reason why he should yet. On this point, I have a question. Doesn't the side of the ISS that faces the sun have one (rather hot) temperature while the other side is of a different (rather cold) temperature? Since both sides are in zero gravity, shouldn't both sides be freezing? I say we ask duncan. @duncan, why aren't both sides of the ISS freezing since both are in zero gravity? If you don't know the answer, perhaps you can contact Pete Rogers and get an answer from him and then share it with us. Thanks in advance. . Actually, they are not in zero gravity. The ISS has mass. All portions of the ISS are attracted to the center of that mass. Newton actually discussed this kind of thing in The Principia. The ISS is also in orbit around Earth, due to a combination of gravity and it's speed relative to the barycenter between Earth and ISS (essentially the center of the Earth). Yet one side is freezing and one side is roasting. So, Duncan, why is this? Give it some atmosphere and see what happens duncan61

15-07-2022 15:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:Give it some atmosphere and see what happens We're focusing on "gravity increasing temperature" because it makes "perfect sense.". Why the disparity between the two sides of the ISS?
15-07-2022 19:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:Actually, they are not in zero gravity. The ISS has mass. Well, there are various ways to look at this. Are you claiming that the mass of the ISS is accelerating in a particular direction? Into the Night wrote:The ISS is also in orbit around Earth, due to a combination of gravity and it's speed relative to the barycenter between Earth and ISS (essentially the center of the Earth). Yes. The sum of forces equals zero. Therefore there is no difference between this and zero gravity. This is why a candle will not burn on the ISS. ... unless, perhaps, you can think of a difference. Into the Night wrote:Yet one side is freezing and one side is roasting. So, Duncan, why is this? Maybe this is that difference! Maybe gravity is being "balanced out" to zero by the negative work generated by the temperature differential between the two sides, which is caused by the cold side having negative gravity and the hot side having "equal and opposite" positive gravity. Maybe ATE is just a theological name for thermal capacitance. This follows the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and allows for ozone depletion, but this gets into quantum mechanics. This is basic stuff, really, how do you not know this? . Yes. The sum of forces equals zero. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-07-2022 19:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: Into the Night wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote:He probably won't. I see no reason why he should yet. On this point, I have a question. Doesn't the side of the ISS that faces the sun have one (rather hot) temperature while the other side is of a different (rather cold) temperature? Since both sides are in zero gravity, shouldn't both sides be freezing? I say we ask duncan. @duncan, why aren't both sides of the ISS freezing since both are in zero gravity? If you don't know the answer, perhaps you can contact Pete Rogers and get an answer from him and then share it with us. Thanks in advance. . Actually, they are not in zero gravity. The ISS has mass. All portions of the ISS are attracted to the center of that mass. Newton actually discussed this kind of thing in The Principia. The ISS is also in orbit around Earth, due to a combination of gravity and it's speed relative to the barycenter between Earth and ISS (essentially the center of the Earth). Yet one side is freezing and one side is roasting. So, Duncan, why is this? Give it some atmosphere and see what happens What will happen is the atmosphere dissipates into space rather quickly. The ISS has insufficient mass to retain a significant atmosphere (it already does have an atmosphere around it, but it's so thin it's insignificant). No, you can't contrive stuff like that! Answer the question put to you. Why is one side freezing and one side roasting? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 15-07-2022 19:05
16-07-2022 03:47
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	The answer is one side is in the sun and the other is not.I have to go out but will continue later
16-07-2022 09:27
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Why do you think it is so?I have learned from being active on this site that the Earth has an atmosphere and that takes time to heat and cool.Do you think when the ISS was being assembled anyone thought to put a thermometer in the bag.Is it possible to know what the surface of the ISS is on the sunny side?
16-07-2022 19:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:I have learned from being active on this site that the Earth has an atmosphere and that takes time to heat and cool. ... and this is irrelevant. You also learned on this site that hexavalent chromium is dangerous. Also irrelevant. You claim that gravity increases temperature. You got this from Pete Rogers and you rushed to his defense when others much smarter than Pete Rogers tried to correct him. You insisted that gravity-caused temperature increases make perfect sense in exactly the same way that warmizombies claim that CO2-caused temperature increases make perfect sense. ... and just like warmizombies, you rush to mock those much smarter than yourself that happen to point out scientific flaws in your religious beliefs. I could ask you again to connect the dots for me and show me how gravity (a force) acts to increase temperature, but you will EVADE again by pretending that Pete Rogers never made such a claim or by playing coy with irrelevant statements. You are dishonest and deserve ongoing mockery. You've earned it. So when do we publish our "Cooking with Gravity" recipe book? Perhaps we can be in time for Swan to try out our graviton-braised garlic Brussel sprouts. .
17-07-2022 01:45
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	O.K. I admit I used to think I could cook stuff with gravity but now I do not.What happens now.You seem to of dropped out the ISS debate now I have bought gravity and atmospheres in to the debate.I have learned 2 new words this week Greenwashing.When a company or organisation pretends to of cleaned up its act when it has done very little Gaslighting.What IBDm and ITN do
17-07-2022 05:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:O.K. I admit I used to think I could cook stuff with gravity but now I do not. Progress! duncan61 wrote: You seem to of dropped out the ISS debate now I have bought gravity and atmospheres in to the debate. Actually, you seem to have dropped out of all debate, period. You still haven't connected the dots for anyone, i.e. explained how gravity increases temperature. You simply babble irrelevant words. The topic is "gravity increasing temperature." Your latest irrelevant word-hurl: "atmosphere." Big F'ing deal. The word "atmosphere" has nothing to do with "gravity increasing temperature" insofar as you have explained. Is there any reason you EVADE all discussion on this topic? Is there a reason for your apparent abandonment of all hope of defending your stupid position in deference to babbling gibberish in order to buy time? By any chance, have you noticed that you are a total ashsole to warmizombies over their beliefs ... which happen to be identical your beliefs except in one single, solitary and totally trivial aspect? duncan61 wrote:Gaslighting.What IBDm and ITN do Which means you did not learn this word. You apparently do not know what it means. I'll give you a hint: you do it to a certain extent and I do not. Go back and look it up. .
17-07-2022 17:41
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Hi. IBDm.I have just come home on an Uber and as per usual I ended up with the guy dressed as a girl and I am not sure who I am again.F"£k I am happy
17-07-2022 21:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:Hi. IBDm.I have just come home on an Uber and as per usual I ended up with the guy dressed as a girl and I am not sure who I am again.F"£k I am happy Did the driver have a placard in the car saying his name and pronouns ... or was that contained in the app information?
17-07-2022 22:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: The answer is one side is in the sun and the other is not.I have to go out but will continue later So why is the Earth's surface not as hot during the day and not as cold as night? Why is just a few feet below the Earth, temperatures are a nice steady temperature? Why does Earth's oceans have cold currents, even on the daytime side of Earth? 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
17-07-2022 22:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: Why do you think it is so?I have learned from being active on this site that the Earth has an atmosphere and that takes time to heat and cool.Do you think when the ISS was being assembled anyone thought to put a thermometer in the bag.Is it possible to know what the surface of the ISS is on the sunny side? The ISS does have thermometers monitoring outside temperature. The sunlit side reaches some 250 deg F, while the side in shadow can drop to -200 deg F. What 'bag' are you referring to? 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
17-07-2022 22:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: O.K. I admit I used to think I could cook stuff with gravity[,] but now I do not. So you will never claim gravity is energy again, right? duncan61 wrote: What happens now.[x?] That depends on you. This is your paradox you are trying to resolve. duncan61 wrote: You seem to of dropped out the ISS debate now[.] There wasn't any. duncan61 wrote: I have bought gravity and atmospheres in to the debate. How much does gravity cost? How much does 'atmospheres[x]' cost? duncan61 wrote: I have learned 2 new words this week[.] Greenwashing.[x:][ ]When a company or organis[xz]ation pretends to of cleaned up its act when it has done very little[.] Gaslighting.[x:][ ]What IBDm and ITN do[.] LIF. You cannot project YOUR problems on either of us. Illiteracy: Missing required comma. Use of period where question mark is required. Missing required period in numerous locations. Use of plural for singular word. Missing space between sentences and after commas. Use of period when colon is required. 'organization' is spelled with a 'z'. Attempt to define word with itself. The term 'gaslighting' may mean several different things: 1) lighting a gas lamp. 2) lighting a pilot flame on a gas appliance. 3) a colloquial term referring to a movie called 'Gaslight'. Used to refer to the movie plot where trickery is used to make one doubt their own sanity. So...are you attempting to refer to the 3rd definition, where IBdaMann and I make you doubt your own sanity? That is to say, you are losing your sanity? or Have you already lost your sanity and you are trying to blame us for it? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 17-07-2022 22:55
18-07-2022 06:06
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Into the Night wrote: duncan61 wrote: Why do you think it is so?I have learned from being active on this site that the Earth has an atmosphere and that takes time to heat and cool.Do you think when the ISS was being assembled anyone thought to put a thermometer in the bag.Is it possible to know what the surface of the ISS is on the sunny side? The ISS does have thermometers monitoring outside temperature. The sunlit side reaches some 250 deg F, while the side in shadow can drop to -200 deg F. What 'bag' are you referring to? Tool bag.Its a tradesman thing.I am pleased you can quote some temperature readings. duncan61
18-07-2022 12:22
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Is there anything else that can have its temperature measured?

18-07-2022 17:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:Is there anything else that can have its temperature measured? That answer is relative as it depends on your ability to grasp the concept of "margin of error." At the moment, you apparently have no understanding of the concept so I guess you can measure the temperature of everything. Have at it. You'll just remain thoroughly confused when others don't accept your values. Cheers, mate.
19-07-2022 19:08
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	There are nearly 200 recognised countries in the world.It fluctuates.Can we assume that they all have a capital city.If there is one recording device in each city in a garden in permanent shade and has not been influenced by airports or recent fitting of air-conditioning outlets over the last 50 years.From 1972 and they have all been constantly recording the temperature where they are 24/7 and feeding this information in to a computer that has compiled this information constantly and all of them have shown exactly 1.0 C rise in temperature on average would it be reasonable to suggest the temperature may have gone up globally 1.0 C.I am not suggesting this has or will happen however that would be a good indicator regardless of margins of error.The chance that every unit malfunctioned the same over the same time frame everywhere would be far out
19-07-2022 20:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: There are nearly 200 recognised countries in the world.It fluctuates.Can we assume that they all have a capital city.If there is one recording device in each city in a garden in permanent shade and has not been influenced by airports or recent fitting of air-conditioning outlets over the last 50 years.From 1972 and they have all been constantly recording the temperature where they are 24/7 and feeding this information in to a computer that has compiled this information constantly and all of them have shown exactly 1.0 C rise in temperature on average would it be reasonable to suggest the temperature may have gone up globally 1.0 C.I am not suggesting this has or will happen however that would be a good indicator regardless of margins of error.The chance that every unit malfunctioned the same over the same time frame everywhere would be far out The margin of error is too high. Attempted proof by contrivance. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
20-07-2022 04:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:There are nearly 200 recognised countries in the world.It fluctuates.Can we assume that they all have a capital city. Sure. duncan61 wrote: If there is one recording device in each city in a garden in permanent shade Several Questions: 1. Roughly how many thermometers are you talking about? Give me a rough number. 2. Can we agree that there is no way to verify calibration for more than a few at a time? 3. Can we agree that these thermometers just aren't synchronized? 4. Can we agree that actual math is to be used, and not wild, baseless insistences designed to force conclusions of a particular political agenda? 5. Are you prepared to acknowledge that unanimous readings of a one degree temperature rise could quite possibly be a forty degree decrease in average temperature? Ooooh, you didn't like that last one, did you? It totally goes against the wild insistence that formed the basis of your post, the one that was intended to force conclusions toward your political agenda, i.e. Global Warming ... caused by ATE. So, answer the questions and I'll gladly tell you what can be concluded in your hypothetical scenario. .
20-07-2022 12:28
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	1.Nearly 200.one in each city 2.We are recording each one separately and hypothetically all show a 1.0C rise 3.They are all independent of each other 4.We are recording each device separately 5.If all nearly 200 show a 1.0C rise it is unlikely that it is not happening everywhere
20-07-2022 19:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:1.Nearly 200.one in each city That's what I thought you meant, i.e. not the several hundreds of millions of synchronized thermometers, carefully placed per a valid data-collection plan, needed to create any sort of valid conclusion as the one you are pushing. Thanks for clarifying. duncan61 wrote:2.We are recording each one separately and hypothetically all show a 1.0C rise That's what I thought you meant, i.e. not synchronized at all, introducing huge levels of error on top of that which you already have. duncan61 wrote:3.They are all independent of each other That's what I thought you meant. See preceding comment. duncan61 wrote:4.We are recording each device separately Yep. See preceding comment. duncan61 wrote:5.If all nearly 200 show a 1.0C rise it is unlikely that it is not happening everywhere This is exactly the absurdly invalid conclusion that I knew you were pushing per your irrational political agenda. Given your negligible 200 independent (unsynchronized) measurements, none of which are at any ocean depth or at any atmospheric altitude above ground level, a unanimous indication of 1C temperature increase is just as likely to be a 2C temperature decrease, given your insane margin of error. I know, I know, you are mathematically incompetent and can't possibly be expected to have any sort of grasp of statistical math and I know, I know, you never insist the margin of error be included because you never consider it yourself, because you are mathematically incompetent, ... and so you will therefore believe any wild story you are ordered to believe ... to include that gravity causes temperature to increase. So the answer is "no." It would be absurd to accept such a stupid conclusion as the one you have suggested unless one is already trying desperately to show that earth's temperature is increasing for some reason, e.g. gravity. Learn some math. .
20-07-2022 19:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: 1.Nearly 200.one in each city 2.We are recording each one separately and hypothetically all show a 1.0C rise 3.They are all independent of each other 4.We are recording each device separately 5.If all nearly 200 show a 1.0C rise it is unlikely that it is not happening everywhere So you are using raw data in your contrivance that is biased by location grouping. No. You can't claim #5. The margin of error is too high. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 20-07-2022 19:21
21-07-2022 05:33
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]duncan61 wrote:1.Nearly 200.one in each city That's what I thought you meant, i.e. not the several hundreds of millions of synchronized thermometers, carefully placed per a valid data-collection plan, needed to create any sort of valid conclusion as the one you are pushing. Thanks for clarifying. duncan61 wrote:2.We are recording each one separately and hypothetically all show a 1.0C rise That's what I thought you meant, i.e. not synchronized at all, introducing huge levels of error on top of that which you already have. duncan61 wrote:3.They are all independent of each other That's what I thought you meant. See preceding comment. duncan61 wrote:4.We are recording each device separately Yep. See preceding comment. duncan61 wrote:5.If all nearly 200 show a 1.0C rise it is unlikely that it is not happening everywhere This is exactly the absurdly invalid conclusion that I knew you were pushing per your irrational political agenda. Given your negligible 200 independent (unsynchronized) measurements, none of which are at any ocean depth or at any atmospheric altitude above ground level, a unanimous indication of 1C temperature increase is just as likely to be a 2C temperature decrease, given your insane margin of error. I know, I know, you are mathematically incompetent and can't possibly be expected to have any sort of grasp of statistical math and I know, I know, you never insist the margin of error be included because you never consider it yourself, because you are mathematically incompetent, ... and so you will therefore believe any wild story you are ordered to believe ... to include that gravity causes temperature to increase. So the answer is "no." It would be absurd to accept such a stupid conclusion as the one you have suggested unless one is already trying desperately to show that earth's temperature is increasing for some reason, e.g. gravity. Learn some math. Gravity does not increase temperature. The steak never cooked. The insults must begin. I made this scenario up all on my own for my own benefit. No one ordered me to believe anything. So in conclusion even if 200 thermometers around the world showed a 1.0C increase on average over 50 tears it means squat? I prefer Don Easterbrook's version. I have seen him give presentations and he has looked in depth at all the information available and drawn his own conclusion. There was some warming up to the late 80s and now it has stopped and gone the other way. It was warmer in the 30s and then declined to the 50s.This is all that matters to me. The heat wave in Europe is going to fuel a big push for the warmazombies. I will just drive less and do less work problem solved duncan61
21-07-2022 06:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote: No one ordered me to believe anything. I would appear that Don Easterbrook is the one doing your thinking for you. duncan61 wrote:So in conclusion even if 200 thermometers around the world showed a 1.0C increase on average over 50 tears it means squat? If you would learn some math, you wouldn't have to ask now would you? Notice that I'm not telling you to take my word for anything. I'm telling you to learn some math. As a courtesy, I am giving you a glimpse of some of the stuff you will learn if you do. So go learn some math ... especially margin of error. If you omit it, you are begging to be mocked. Ergo, when someone pawns a wildly outrageous theory on you, it's your responsibility to ask about the margin of error along with the valid raw dataset used in the computation. If you aren't asking for any of that and you just swallow the boolsch't, you won't get a lot of sympathy when you try referring to people's observations of your gullibility as "insults." duncan61 wrote: I prefer Don Easterbrook's version. I wonder why. Oh wait! Let me guess. You like the fact that Don doesn't make you think about any of that margin of error crap. I bet he tells you to not bother looking for any "The Data", that you should leave all the thinking to him, yes? I bet he tells you that he has looked at all of "The Data" in depth and has drawn all of his own conclusions that you should believe without question, and that includes not asking to ever see any of "The Data" and never, ever, ever, ever mentioning "margin of error." duncan61 wrote:I have seen him give presentations and he has looked in depth at all the information available and drawn his own conclusion. ... and now you have all of "his conclusions" as well, yes? duncan61 wrote:There was some warming up to the late 80s and now it has stopped Why do you believe this? Aaaah, yes, you don't ever need to see any valid raw datasets. You just believe whatever you are told to believe, without question. The temperature of the earth cannot be measured to any usable margin of error, so how can Don Easterbrook get you to believe that there was warming that stopped? Oh, that's right, he simply told you to believe it ... and so you did. Does this mean we're done on this topic? .
21-07-2022 12:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: Gravity does not increase temperature. The steak never cooked. The insults must begin. I made this scenario up all on my own for my own benefit. No one ordered me to believe anything. Don Easterbrook did. duncan61 wrote: So in conclusion even if 200 thermometers around the world showed a 1.0C increase on average over 50 tears it means squat? Not even squat. It means absolutely nothing. You are still discarding statistical mathematics. duncan61 wrote: I prefer Don Easterbrook's version. Q.E.D. duncan61 wrote: I have seen him give presentations and he has looked in depth at all the information available and drawn his own conclusion. Which now happens to be YOUR conclusion. Q.E.D. duncan61 wrote: There was some warming up to the late 80s It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. duncan61 wrote: and now it has stopped and gone the other way. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. duncan61 wrote: It was warmer in the 30s It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. duncan61 wrote: and then declined to the 50s. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. duncan61 wrote: This is all that matters to me. What matters to you is random numbers of type randU. You believe them because you were told to believe them. duncan61 wrote: The heat wave in Europe is going to fuel a big push for the warmazombies. If it's too hot it's blamed on 'global warming'. If it's too cold it's blamed on 'global warming'. If it's too wet it's blamed on 'global warming'. If it's too dry it's blamed on 'global warming'. See the pattern here??? duncan61 wrote: I will just drive less and do less work problem solved What problem? You have not yet stated The Problem. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are still denying the laws of thermodynamics. 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

Page 11 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