Satellites

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Satellites

Page 1 of 7

Satellites11-05-2020 12:26
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Can anyone lead me to a link where I can get a better understanding of how Satellites can measure temperature.What I have been getting by what I am reading is once again it is made up to suit the situation.It seems that the Satellites read light emmisions then convert it to potential temp then the data is altered to suit orbit and local conditions.Can that realy be done and taken seriously??BTW I am over sea levels now as until I see it happen it is a hoax.Holland handled the ocean 400 years ago so we can cope duncan61
11-05-2020 16:57
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-1-2.html or http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature/ Then look up information of the specific satellites and instruments mentioned therein. They measure microwave or infrared emissions and derive an effective temperature by passing the data through an atmospheric model. One thing to realize is their height resolution is very poor. The lowest layer of the atmosphere they measure is centered at about 4 km in altitude. Their temporal resolution is poor too (several days).
11-05-2020 17:06
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	DRKTS wrote: They measure microwave or infrared emissions and derive an effective temperature by passing the data through an atmospheric model. Do you know which atmospheric model? Is it any good or is it crap? I'd like to take a look at it and judge for myself. DRKTS wrote: One thing to realize is their height resolution is very poor. The lowest layer of the atmosphere they measure is centered at about 4 km in altitude. Their temporal resolution is poor too (several days). Passive measurement of electromagnetic emission offers no depth. The only reason that a radar can tell distance is because it actively emits a signal and uses time differential to gauge distance. Satellites can't tell from what distance a photon came. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
11-05-2020 18:33
DRKTS ★★☆☆☆ (305)	IBdaMann wrote: DRKTS wrote: They measure microwave or infrared emissions and derive an effective temperature by passing the data through an atmospheric model. Do you know which atmospheric model? Is it any good or is it crap? I'd like to take a look at it and judge for myself. DRKTS wrote: One thing to realize is their height resolution is very poor. The lowest layer of the atmosphere they measure is centered at about 4 km in altitude. Their temporal resolution is poor too (several days). Passive measurement of electromagnetic emission offers no depth. The only reason that a radar can tell distance is because it actively emits a signal and uses time differential to gauge distance. Satellites can't tell from what distance a photon came. . For the models used in the satellite analyses go to the papers published by RSS and UAH Correct on the sounding, they use the wavelength of the photon to determine the temperature of the gas it was emitted by and that corresponds to a particular altitude. But the method is rough and prone to ill-conditioned solutions to the equations (i.e., a small error in th edata can produce a large error in the result.
11-05-2020 22:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	duncan61 wrote: Can anyone lead me to a link where I can get a better understanding of how Satellites can measure temperature.What I have been getting by what I am reading is once again it is made up to suit the situation.It seems that the Satellites read light emmisions then convert it to potential temp then the data is altered to suit orbit and local conditions.Can that realy be done and taken seriously??BTW I am over sea levels now as until I see it happen it is a hoax.Holland handled the ocean 400 years ago so we can cope The problem with measuring an absolute temperature with a satellite stems from the several factors: There is more than one way to make light. The Stefan-Boltzmann law (blackbody radiance) is only one. Another is 'harmonic emission', where an electron drops from a higher orbital to a lower one. Basically all you have to do to make light is to shake a charged particle at some frequency. The outward moving electromagnetic fields are light. Satellites can only measure light. They have to try to use the Stefan-Boltzmann law in reverse to get any idea of temperature. However, they do not know, and cannot know, whether that photon was emitted by Earth by blackbody radiance, whether the photon was emitted by harmonic emission (the way LEDs, animals, and laser generators produce light), or whether the photon is from some other light source other than the Earth and is simply reflected. The Stefan-Boltzmann law: r=Cet^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts/square area 'C' is a constant of nature, which serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is a measured constant called 'emissivity', or how well a surface radiates. To measure this value, one must first accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. 't' is temperature in deg K. Thus, the Stefan-Boltzmann law has what are known as dependent variables and independent variables. The independent variable is temperature. You can play around with it as much as you like. The dependent variable is radiance. It depends on the temperature. It is the calculated answer for the light generated by blackbody radiance only. If you have the radiance, you don't know if it's due to blackbody radiance, harmonic radiance, or the reflection from some other radiance. So what the satellite sees as 'radiance from the Earth' due to blackbody radiance is a guess. The emissivity is unknown. It is, however, a constant. The relation still applies to Earth, but it is not possible to calculate exact values of radiance without first knowing the temperature of the Earth in the first place...and we don't. IF and only if emissivities are similar, then a satellite can measure comparative radiance between them, but again, this is assuming the emissivity of the two regions are similar or the same, and is also assuming the sources of any harmonic radiance (that have nothing to do with temperature) are the same. So we can use them to compare warmer water in a surface current on a relatively colder sea around it, and look for things like warm car engines that are significantly warmer than the surrounding car, but that's about it. Satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature, which is required to measure the temperature of the Earth. The best they can do is relative temperatures between relatively similar objects (with a lot of assumptions). Not a link, but an explanation. 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

12-05-2020 00:23
Amanbir Grewal★☆☆☆☆ (123)	https://www.euronews.com/programs/climate-now some earth shattering satellite imagery. AUGUST COMTE AN EMPLOYED SOCIALIST BEFORE A PANEL OTHERWISE A SIMPLE PLANNER OF GUISES AND POTIONS
12-05-2020 04:46
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Thanks team I was starting to suspect this was the case.So rising sea levels are out as the claim is Satelittes can measure sea level and they can not.Driving the temperature up is out as Satellites can not measure temperature and there is not enough measuring devices on the planet.I guess weather is next on my list however we had predicted storms last week and they were 2 days late on the days the forecast said 80% chance of rain it did not rain and the day that was 10% chance it poured all day and night so the predicted extreme weather events are not necessarily likely to happen either
12-05-2020 06:00
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	duncan61 wrote: Thanks team I was starting to suspect this was the case.So rising sea levels are out as the claim is Satelittes can measure sea level and they can not.Driving the temperature up is out as Satellites can not measure temperature and there is not enough measuring devices on the planet.I guess weather is next on my list however we had predicted storms last week and they were 2 days late on the days the forecast said 80% chance of rain it did not rain and the day that was 10% chance it poured all day and night so the predicted extreme weather events are not necessarily likely to happen either As long as you are exploring the topic of weather and of predicting weather, this is an area ripe for warmizombie charlatans to prey on people who simply haven't learned some fundamental concepts. 1) Weather is random. That's right. It is random, exactly like flipping a coin. If you are flipping a fair, balanced coin and at one point you notice that you have flipped "heads" six consecutive times ... what is the probability that you will flip heads the next time? Yes, it is still 50%. This is because each event (flip) is independent and random. There are no dependencies between flips ergo there is nothing to form any correlations, ergo there are no correlations to form any causalities, ergo no coin flip determines any subsequent coin flip. 2) There is no such thing as a weather "trend." There can't be. There are no dependencies among random events which is why there can be no trends among random events. There is no such thing as a pattern among coin flips and there is no such thing as a pattern among the randomness of the weather. However, some warmizombies will say "There are seasons. That's a PATTERN." It's nothing more than a predictable pattern of the earth's orbit around the sun [actually, the barycenter] and it does not tell you what the weather will be on any given day any more than it will tell you whether heads or tails will come up on any given day. 3) Weather can nonetheless be predicted to a certain extent to within a certain probability. Weather is only random because there are far too many, nay, countless parameters involved and we can never know any more than an infinitesimally small percentage of them at any given time. Weather is a natural phenomenon that is completely subject to the laws of physics ... but across the entire planet and involves every molecule and the entire solar flux for which we don't have all the necessary information either. It's all interrelated. There is no way for us to be able to know even a significant subset of the parameters involved. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prevents us from knowing both the position and momentum of any molecule at any given time, much less all of them. Ergo, we can't predict solar flux for the same reason. However, one area of relief for us is complexity theory which tells us that the more complex a system, the fewer parameters we need in order to understand (and or control/affect) its behavior. This is why with relatively little input data we can generally predict tomorrow's weather for a given 5-mile radius to a value-added level of accuracy. Unfortunately, advancements in weather prediction grow exponentially more difficult as we try to extend predictions to smaller and smaller areas and as we try to extend predictions further and further into the future. Ergo, weather one year out is as good as completely random. Heck, weather three weeks out is as good as completely random. 4) There is no such thing as a global "Climate." This is a contradiction in terms. A climate is a subjective human characterization of some local conditions bounded by some time frame. Warmizombies will tell you that the global climate is the exact opposite, i.e. that the global "Climate" is global, not local, conditions that are not subjective but somehow objectively determined by sacred DATA that no one has ever seen, and is somehow unbounded by time and should be AT LEAST thirty years of measurements, but the more the better. If I ask you "What is the Summer daytime climate of Phoenix, Arizona? You will respond with a subjective characterization of "sweltering and arid." It would be absurd of me to demand to know what data you used to CALCULATE that climate because no calculations are involved in subjective characterizations. You think it's hot in Phoenix and that's that. If I disagree and think Phoenix is a "perfect" climate then that's what I claim and I similarly won't be providing any data. So then it's your turn to ask warmizombies "What is the global climate?" What can they answer? That it's sweltering freezing? That it is overcast clear and sunny? That it is calm with hurricane winds? Of course they will huddle and try to come up with something right away otherwise they're fugged ... so they will try to respond "the global climate is 'intergalacia'!" ... until you remind them that that is a time period, not a climate. Warmizombies will be forced to insist that "intergalacial" is a valid climate. ... and you work is done. [note: none of the above applies to tmiddles and his omniscience. He knows both the position and momentum of every subatomic particle, of every photon, and of every law-abiding citizen who should be rendered completely defenseless. There is nothing he does not know because to him, everything is KNOWN] [FIND-WEATHERISRANDOM] . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit* A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-05-2020 08:37
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	If I become a warmizombie charlatan will I get a pretty badge I can glue on my tinfoil hat LOL
12-05-2020 08:40
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Sorry I just had a happy moment.As usual you have explained in great detail and I got it.I have just asked a similar question on the other thread.
12-05-2020 09:09
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	duncan61 wrote: If I become a warmizombie charlatan will I get a pretty badge I can glue on my tinfoil hat LOL Sure. I'll design a model for your consideration. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-05-2020 12:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	duncan61 wrote: Thanks team I was starting to suspect this was the case.So rising sea levels are out as the claim is Satelittes can measure sea level and they can not.Driving the temperature up is out as Satellites can not measure temperature and there is not enough measuring devices on the planet.I guess weather is next on my list however we had predicted storms last week and they were 2 days late on the days the forecast said 80% chance of rain it did not rain and the day that was 10% chance it poured all day and night so the predicted extreme weather events are not necessarily likely to happen either A lot of people claim all kinds of magickal things satellites supposedly do. Remember they are just basically a camera sitting on a very high platform that can very slightly maneuver. 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
12-05-2020 12:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: Thanks team I was starting to suspect this was the case.So rising sea levels are out as the claim is Satelittes can measure sea level and they can not.Driving the temperature up is out as Satellites can not measure temperature and there is not enough measuring devices on the planet.I guess weather is next on my list however we had predicted storms last week and they were 2 days late on the days the forecast said 80% chance of rain it did not rain and the day that was 10% chance it poured all day and night so the predicted extreme weather events are not necessarily likely to happen either As long as you are exploring the topic of weather and of predicting weather, this is an area ripe for warmizombie charlatans to prey on people who simply haven't learned some fundamental concepts. 1) Weather is random. That's right. It is random, exactly like flipping a coin. If you are flipping a fair, balanced coin and at one point you notice that you have flipped "heads" six consecutive times ... what is the probability that you will flip heads the next time? Yes, it is still 50%. This is because each event (flip) is independent and random. There are no dependencies between flips ergo there is nothing to form any correlations, ergo there are no correlations to form any causalities, ergo no coin flip determines any subsequent coin flip. 2) There is no such thing as a weather "trend." There can't be. There are no dependencies among random events which is why there can be no trends among random events. There is no such thing as a pattern among coin flips and there is no such thing as a pattern among the randomness of the weather. However, some warmizombies will say "There are seasons. That's a PATTERN." It's nothing more than a predictable pattern of the earth's orbit around the sun [actually, the barycenter] and it does not tell you what the weather will be on any given day any more than it will tell you whether heads or tails will come up on any given day. 3) Weather can nonetheless be predicted to a certain extent to within a certain probability. Weather is only random because there are far too many, nay, countless parameters involved and we can never know any more than an infinitesimally small percentage of them at any given time. Weather is a natural phenomenon that is completely subject to the laws of physics ... but across the entire planet and involves every molecule and the entire solar flux for which we don't have all the necessary information either. It's all interrelated. There is no way for us to be able to know even a significant subset of the parameters involved. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prevents us from knowing both the position and momentum of any molecule at any given time, much less all of them. Ergo, we can't predict solar flux for the same reason. However, one area of relief for us is complexity theory which tells us that the more complex a system, the fewer parameters we need in order to understand (and or control/affect) its behavior. This is why with relatively little input data we can generally predict tomorrow's weather for a given 5-mile radius to a value-added level of accuracy. Unfortunately, advancements in weather prediction grow exponentially more difficult as we try to extend predictions to smaller and smaller areas and as we try to extend predictions further and further into the future. Ergo, weather one year out is as good as completely random. Heck, weather three weeks out is as good as completely random. 4) There is no such thing as a global "Climate." This is a contradiction in terms. A climate is a subjective human characterization of some local conditions bounded by some time frame. Warmizombies will tell you that the global climate is the exact opposite, i.e. that the global "Climate" is global, not local, conditions that are not subjective but somehow objectively determined by sacred DATA that no one has ever seen, and is somehow unbounded by time and should be AT LEAST thirty years of measurements, but the more the better. If I ask you "What is the Summer daytime climate of Phoenix, Arizona? You will respond with a subjective characterization of "sweltering and arid." It would be absurd of me to demand to know what data you used to CALCULATE that climate because no calculations are involved in subjective characterizations. You think it's hot in Phoenix and that's that. If I disagree and think Phoenix is a "perfect" climate then that's what I claim and I similarly won't be providing any data. So then it's your turn to ask warmizombies "What is the global climate?" What can they answer? That it's sweltering freezing? That it is overcast clear and sunny? That it is calm with hurricane winds? Of course they will huddle and try to come up with something right away otherwise they're fugged ... so they will try to respond "the global climate is 'intergalacia'!" ... until you remind them that that is a time period, not a climate. Warmizombies will be forced to insist that "intergalacial" is a valid climate. ... and you work is done. [note: none of the above applies to tmiddles and his omniscience. He knows both the position and momentum of every subatomic particle, of every photon, and of every law-abiding citizen who should be rendered completely defenseless. There is nothing he does not know because to him, everything is KNOWN] [FIND-WEATHERISRANDOM] . An excellent description of the randomness of weather, and how probability math is incapable of prediction. 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
13-05-2020 02:38
Amanbir Grewal★☆☆☆☆ (123)	he is putting the resistance army in 'optimal' places so they cannot betray him. ho chi minh does not care about that, he needs big cities for small people. i don't agree that the plebians need more houses. plebians work for status. of course, the east anglian population will grow stronger by the day, as it erodes your idiocy, one silly rule at a time, in what will later be called a 'labour' revolution. 1. serfdom is needed to maximise military efficiency, in order to protect yourself. 2. it is now that you have a domain that you're fit for, governance-wise. 3. britannia is not much of a province, for both the romans and for hoder. 4. mr john rawls, FRGE here will help you with your explanations through the rest of this process. i'll study criminology. when i do my 9 months in parliament. AUGUST COMTE AN EMPLOYED SOCIALIST BEFORE A PANEL OTHERWISE A SIMPLE PLANNER OF GUISES AND POTIONS
20-05-2020 14:39
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	IBdaMann wrote: 1) Weather is random. That's right. It is random, exactly like flipping a coin. Weather isn't "random". It's chaotic but not random. Weather doesn't suddenly go from +35°C on a nice summer day to -30°C and blizzard the next day. Unlike a coin toss where every flip is independent of the previous one, weather for any given time period isn't independent of what came before it and you'd have to use incredibly powerful and disruptive forces to make such drastic and sudden changes happen. IBdaMann wrote: 2) There is no such thing as a weather "trend." There can't be. There are no dependencies among random events which is why there can be no trends among random events. There is no such thing as a pattern among coin flips and there is no such thing as a pattern among the randomness of the weather. An individual coin flip cannot have a pattern. Many coin flips will have a pattern. If you plot the distribution of heads vs tails as a function of the number of flips, you will find that it converges on 50/50 for a perfectly fair coin. For a weighted coin, the distribution might approach 60/40 or 70/30 or whatever over time. You might as well consider daily or hourly fluctuations in stock prices "random". Yet you can clearly see patterns and trends emerge over longer time periods. I agree though that the term "weather trend" doesn't make much sense. Weather is more or less by definition short term fluctuation or noise. "Weather" is exactly what obscures long-term trends in temperature and such. IBdaMann wrote: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prevents us from knowing both the position and momentum of any molecule at any given time, much less all of them. Funny thing about that is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle like all other quantum mechanic principles is quite irrelevant at macroscopic scales. That's why we don't observe any funky quantum effects like tunneling or the double slit experiment with macroscopic objects. The more particles our system consists of, the more and more defined and stable its average properties will be. For all intents and purposes we can determine the position and velocity of any macroscopic object to an arbitrary precision. The uncertainty which is demanded by Heisenberg's principle is well outside of the range of all macroscopic measurements. A few Planck lengths of uncertainty in the length of any macroscopic object are meaningless. A few Planck lengths and times of uncertainty are irrelevant for determining, say, the speed of a car. Any macroscopically determined property of an object such as temperature, volume or pressure is the result of an average over a huge amount of individual particles. What any individual particle will do over time is to some extent random. However, the average over a huge amount of particles is not very random. The relative uncertainty in the momentum of a single particle due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may be high but the relative uncertainty in the average momentum of a large amount of particles due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not very high. That's exactly why statistical mechanics is so useful in thermodynamics. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is nothing other than a statement of the fact that given enough time any system will always evolve towards the most probable macrostate of that system. IBdaMann wrote: Ergo, we can't predict solar flux for the same reason. Solar flux is an aggregate quantity of a mind-bogglingly large amount of individual particles, just like, say the temperature of an object. Or do you wish to claim that we cannot make statements about the temperature of any object to a reasonable degree of certainty (say ±0.001 K) due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Long-term projections of solar flux are indeed subject to some uncertainty even on any macropscopically useful scale but that uncertainty arises from factors other than Heisenberg's principle. IBdaMann wrote: 4) There is no such thing as a global "Climate. That we can also agree on. However, I fail to see how this is anything other than a strawman argument. I am not aware of any climate scientist making use of that term. I'm sure you can point me to some examples to prove me wrong. I know that you like to play fast and loose with meanings and definitions but a global change in climate is not the same as change in global climate.

20-05-2020 22:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 1) Weather is random. That's right. It is random, exactly like flipping a coin. Weather isn't "random". It's chaotic but not random. JackFou wrote: Weather doesn't suddenly go from +35°C on a nice summer day to -30°C and blizzard the next day. Weather is random. It is a multi randR system (like two or more dice). JackFou wrote: Unlike a coin toss where every flip is independent of the previous one, weather for any given time period isn't independent of what came before it and you'd have to use incredibly powerful and disruptive forces to make such drastic and sudden changes happen. Nope. You are comparing a randR number to a paired randR number. They are not the same. Math error. Mantra 25h. JackFou wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: 2) There is no such thing as a weather "trend." There can't be. There are no dependencies among random events which is why there can be no trends among random events. There is no such thing as a pattern among coin flips and there is no such thing as a pattern among the randomness of the weather. An individual coin flip cannot have a pattern. WRONG. A coin flip will have a pattern of heads and tails. It is a randR number generator. JackFou wrote: Many coin flips will have a pattern. Yes. A pattern of heads and tails. It is a randR number generator. JackFou wrote: If you plot the distribution of heads vs tails as a function of the number of flips, you will find that it converges on 50/50 for a perfectly fair coin. WRONG. RandR number generators do not converge. Denial of probability math. Mantra 25h. JackFou wrote: For a weighted coin, the distribution might approach 60/40 or 70/30 or whatever over time. WRONG. RandR number generators do not converge. Mantra 25h. JackFou wrote: You might as well consider daily or hourly fluctuations in stock prices "random". Yet you can clearly see patterns and trends emerge over longer time periods. WRONG. Stock prices are paired randR number generators. They do not converge either. JackFou wrote: I agree though that the term "weather trend" doesn't make much sense. Weather is more or less by definition short term fluctuation or noise. "Weather" is exactly what obscures long-term trends in temperature and such. Define 'long term'. Weather is a mullti randR number generator. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle prevents us from knowing both the position and momentum of any molecule at any given time, much less all of them. Funny thing about that is that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle like all other quantum mechanic principles is quite irrelevant at macroscopic scales....deleted redundancy... WRONG. It is relevant at all levels. Like throwing many dice at once (a multi randR generator), you get a probability of behavior of the macro level, but it is STILL random. Denial of Heisenberg's principle. JackFou wrote: Any macroscopically determined property of an object such as temperature, volume or pressure is the result of an average over a huge amount of individual particles. What any individual particle will do over time is to some extent random. However, the average over a huge amount of particles is not very random. It is still random. It is a multi randR generator. JackFou wrote: The relative uncertainty in the momentum of a single particle due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle may be high but the relative uncertainty in the average momentum of a large amount of particles due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is not very high. You are again comparing a randR number to a multi randR number. Mantra 25h. Argument by randR fallacy. JackFou wrote: That's exactly why statistical mechanics is so useful in thermodynamics. You deny statistical mathematics. Statistical math has nothing to do with the 0th, 1st, 2nd, or 3rd law of thermodynamics. JackFou wrote: The 2nd law of thermodynamics is nothing other than a statement of the fact that given enough time any system will always evolve towards the most probable macrostate of that system. WRONG. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is: e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time. Giving a direction for heat and energy flow, energy will always dissipate if it dissipates at all. It will NEVER gather together. The system must be closed (defined consistently). The Universe that we observe is a closed system. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has never been falsified. You are just choosing to ignore it. Mantra 20a2. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Ergo, we can't predict solar flux for the same reason. Solar flux is an aggregate quantity of a mind-bogglingly large amount of individual particles, just like, say the temperature of an object. Solar flux is not temperature. Mantra 20g. JackFou wrote: Or do you wish to claim that we cannot make statements about the temperature of any object to a reasonable degree of certainty (say ±0.001 K) due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Long-term projections of solar flux are indeed subject to some uncertainty even on any macropscopically useful scale but that uncertainty arises from factors other than Heisenberg's principle. None. Denial of Heisenbergs principle. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 4) There is no such thing as a global "Climate. That we can also agree on. However, I fail to see how this is anything other than a strawman argument. I am not aware of any climate scientist making use of that term. I'm sure you can point me to some examples to prove me wrong. I know that you like to play fast and loose with meanings and definitions but a global change in climate is not the same as change in global climate. So 'climate change' is not 'climate change'???? What the hell IS 'climate change' then?!? Word salad. Mantra 16a. No argument presented. Denial of quantum mechanics. Denial of thermodynamics. Denial of mathematics. Buzzword 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
20-05-2020 23:48
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: So 'climate change' is not 'climate change'???? What the hell IS 'climate change' then?!? I feel genuinely sorry for you since you are so utterly challenged when it comes to reading comprehension even in what is presumably your own native language.
21-05-2020 05:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: So 'climate change' is not 'climate change'???? What the hell IS 'climate change' then?!? I feel genuinely sorry for you since you are so utterly challenged when it comes to reading comprehension even in what is presumably your own native language. Define 'climate change'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-05-2020 08:11
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change'. "Climate" is the weather long term (annually on Earth) for the subject matter identified (could be Denver, or the whole planet at the bottom of the atmosphere) "Weather" describes a number of different attributes including: temperature, humidity, wind, pressure, and so on. "Climate Change" can be read literally as a change in the weather long term for something (the reader waiting to hear what). However it's recognized here on Climate-Debate.com as being the subject matter title for an increase in the temperature of Earth. You continue to ask this stupid question. So let me ask one of you: Define "Climate Debate" ITN I will remind you where you are: climate-debate.com You signed up, so it must mean something to you.
21-05-2020 12:53
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: So 'climate change' is not 'climate change'???? What the hell IS 'climate change' then?!? I feel genuinely sorry for you since you are so utterly challenged when it comes to reading comprehension even in what is presumably your own native language. Define 'climate change'. Do you understand the difference between "global change in climate" and "change in global climate"? Do you notice the different word order in both cases? Are you aware the the order of words in a sentence or expression has an influence on the meaning?
21-05-2020 16:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	JackFou wrote: Do you understand the difference between "global change in climate" and "change in global climate"? In the time it took you to make your post you could have presented your unambiguous definition of "Climate Change" ... provided you had one ... which you don't ... because you don't really believe in this crap. Why don't you just jump to the chase and explain to everyone on this board why we should abandon capitalism and surrender national sovereignty to the European Union? We can then dispense with all the otherwise irrelevant formalities. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-05-2020 21:54
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Do you understand the difference between "global change in climate" and "change in global climate"? ...abandon capitalism and surrender national sovereignty to the European Union?.... Jack has made a point in a debate on "climate-debate.com" and once again you dodge debating by talking about marxism and other drivel. Incidentally I do not concur with you Jack that there is not a global climate as a "climate" is simply the aggregate weather for a region over a specified time period (on Earth annually). You instantly realize Earth as a whole has a climate when you compare it to another planet. "How does the climate on Earth compare to the climate on Venus?" It is implied that the questioner means from the ground level and you could make quite a few global comparisons between the two planets at ground level, globally, that would define them.
21-05-2020 22:31
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Do you understand the difference between "global change in climate" and "change in global climate"? In the time it took you to make your post you could have presented your unambiguous definition of "Climate Change" ... provided you had one ... which you don't ... because you don't really believe in this crap. The main reason is that I know that neither you nor ITN are asking in good faith and that trying to play word games with two people who are intellectually dishonest and redefine words and concepts at every turn is some of the most pointless effort I can think of. tmiddels had a go at it and you didn't even care. I'll try to keep it simple, so maybe you can even agree: Climate is average of the weather conditions in any given location over long-term periods (typically 30+ years). Specifically in terms of temperature, precipitation patterns, air pressure and so on. Climate change are long-term trends in those quantities. For example if we keep measuring the temperature in a certain location and we see that over 30 or 50 or 100 years there's trend upwards or downwards. That would be considered climate change. IBdaMann wrote: Why don't you just jump to the chase and explain to everyone on this board why we should abandon capitalism and surrender national sovereignty to the European Union? We can then dispense with all the otherwise irrelevant formalities. There's a guy who wrote several books about that, at least the first part, anyway. The main issues with capitalism in my opinion is that it values profits higher than human life. With regards to the European Union, while I do think that nation states and their sovereignty seem a bit quaint in an age of globalization, I don't think forming a "super state" is necessarily any better. So yeah, no, you won't get a flaming defense of the EU out of me, sorry.
21-05-2020 22:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change'. "Climate" is the weather long term (annually on Earth) for the subject matter identified (could be Denver, or the whole planet at the bottom of the atmosphere) Define 'long time'. There is no such thing as global weather. tmiddles wrote: "Weather" describes a number of different attributes including: temperature, humidity, wind, pressure, and so on. A reasonable description. There is no global weather. tmiddles wrote: "Climate Change" can be read literally as a change in the weather long term for something (the reader waiting to hear what). However it's recognized here on Climate-Debate.com as being the subject matter title for an increase in the temperature of Earth. Circular definition. You cannot define a buzzword with another buzzword. You cannot define 'climate change' with 'global warming'. tmiddles wrote: You continue to ask this stupid question. So let me ask one of you: No, YOU continue to fail to define either 'climate change' or 'global warming' or even 'a long time'. tmiddles wrote: Define "Climate Debate" ITN I don't need to. tmiddles wrote: I will remind you where you are: climate-debate.com So? tmiddles wrote: You signed up, so it must mean something to you. It means a forum where the Church of Global Warming is preached by some, and where people like me can point out the flaws in your fundamentalist style 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
21-05-2020 22:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: So 'climate change' is not 'climate change'???? What the hell IS 'climate change' then?!? I feel genuinely sorry for you since you are so utterly challenged when it comes to reading comprehension even in what is presumably your own native language. Define 'climate change'. Do you understand the difference between "global change in climate" and "change in global climate"? No. JackFou wrote: Do you notice the different word order in both cases? Yes. JackFou wrote: Are you aware the the order of words in a sentence or expression has an influence on the meaning? Most of the time it doesn't. Many languages have a specific word order and meaning cannot change by word order. Neither wording you are using means anything. Buzzword fallacy. Define 'climate change'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-05-2020 22:45
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	tmiddles wrote: Incidentally I do not concur with you Jack that there is not a global climate as a "climate" is simply the aggregate weather for a region over a specified time period (on Earth annually). You instantly realize Earth as a whole has a climate when you compare it to another planet. "How does the climate on Earth compare to the climate on Venus?" It is implied that the questioner means from the ground level and you could make quite a few global comparisons between the two planets at ground level, globally, that would define them. That's fair enough. It can make sense to discuss these things with someone who's intellectually honest and isn't just looking for a 'gotcha'. I think my main issue with the whole "climate" thing is that you can get lost in endless arguments about what the terms "climate" or "climate change" should or shouldn't encompass, how big of a region you should consider for any given climate zone etc. I think it makes more sense to discuss what's going on in terms of concrete variables such as temperature, atmospheric composition, annual precipitation etc. etc. At the end of the day, what seems important are issues like are will sea level rise render large portions of what is now coastal cities unlivable, will rising temperatures lead to increased droughts and crop failure and threaten food supply, will water shortages make significant parts of the planet uninhabitable and cause large scale migration and so on and so forth. Arguing ad infinitum about the definition of the term "climate" doesn't really get you anywhere. We know that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is real as it follows directly from fundamental laws of physics. We know that increasing temperatures will cause changes in evaporation and precipitation patterns etc. Those are really more the issues I'm interested in rather than trying to figure out what is and what isn't "climate" or whether there is such a thing as "a global climate".
21-05-2020 22:46
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as global weather. Why is that? Because it's to large and too varied? What are the ITN requirements for there to be "weather"? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Climate Change" can be read literally as a change in the weather long term... Circular definition. You cannot define a buzzword with another buzzword. "Weather" nor "temperature" are "buzzword"s. I defined both "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" as changes in temperature/weather. I do not define them with each other. You would acknowledge that the ground level of Earth has a temperature would you not? I did not say do we know it exactly! I said it exists. "long term" is dependent on your subject. For Earth is Annual because we have an annual cycle. The Climate of a cigar humidor doesn't change so you wouldn't need a long term time frame at all. 1 day would works if the door being opened a few times has an impact. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Define "Climate Debate" ITN ...a forum where the Church of Global Warming is preached by some, So you knew what to expect. You understood well that "Climate Debate" would be a header for a grouping of topics. Guess what! It has a definition for you no different than mine.
21-05-2020 22:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Do you understand the difference between "global change in climate" and "change in global climate"? ...abandon capitalism and surrender national sovereignty to the European Union?.... Jack has made a point in a debate on "climate-debate.com" Neither you nor Jack are debating. You are both preaching. tmiddles wrote: and once again you dodge debating by talking about marxism and other drivel. Marxism is a proper noun. It is capitalized. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which stems from the Church of Karl Marx. Now you are just denying the lineage of your own religion. tmiddles wrote: Incidentally I do not concur with you Jack that there is not a global climate as a "climate" is simply the aggregate weather for a region over a specified time period (on Earth annually). You instantly realize Earth as a whole has a climate when you compare it to another planet. "How does the climate on Earth compare to the climate on Venus?" It is implied that the questioner means from the ground level and you could make quite a few global comparisons between the two planets at ground level, globally, that would define them. So you would include 'Earth climate' and 'Venus climate' in such things as 'desert climate', 'marine climate', 'tropical climate', etc? Well, that at least removes any quantities. You are just making subjective comparisons. Yet you described 'climate' as 'weather over a long time'. Since there is no such thing as a global weather, how are you defining 'climate' again? You have entered into yet another paradox. You must clear it now. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-05-2020 22:55
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: Neither you nor Jack are debating. You are both preaching. And you can't make arguments against a preacher? Into the Night wrote:So you would include 'Earth climate' and 'Venus climate' in such things as 'desert climate', 'marine climate', 'tropical climate', etc? I simply think of "climate" as meaning the weather dimensions (temp, wind ect.) over the long term. Basically as long as it takes for a climate to show what it's made of. So for Earth anywhere that is a least 24 hours and usually 365 days. The climate in a museum, should a art preservationist need to know, might be something you could determine with just 1 hour of data as it's artificially controlled. The bottom line for me is there is no point in talking ONLY about "climate" ever. It simply introduces the information you will deal with directly next. Usually on this board it's temperature. It would make as much sense to object to words like "culinary" or "specifications". So yes: Earth, Denver, Venus, the mohave desert, the average of all deserts on earth, ... Those are all things you could introduce by calling them a "climate" before you talk about the dimensions and time frame you are interested in. Into the Night wrote:Since there is no such thing as a global weather,... Who said that? There is global weather. Variety does not mean something ceases to exist or that it does not have a range and an average. Someone might laugh to describe the full range of temperatures on Earth but that would be until we compare it to another planet. Then that descriptive range is very meaningful. Denver has a range of temperatures too! Edited on 21-05-2020 22:58
21-05-2020 23:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Do you understand the difference between "global change in climate" and "change in global climate"? In the time it took you to make your post you could have presented your unambiguous definition of "Climate Change" ... provided you had one ... which you don't ... because you don't really believe in this crap. The main reason is that I know that neither you nor ITN are asking in good faith and that trying to play word games with two people who are intellectually dishonest and redefine words and concepts at every turn is some of the most pointless effort I can think of. Inversion fallacy. It is the Church of Global Warming that is trying to use buzzwords and meaningless phrases. It is YOU that tries to argue the definitions of words. Words have meaning. They also have a history on how that meaning came about. No dictionary defines any word. You can't just arbitrarily redefine them, and you can't define key words and phrases you repeatedly use. Words like 'science', 'religion', and 'real' are defined using philosophy. Words like 'mathematics' and 'logic' are defined by designation of a collection of axioms that describe either closed functional system. Words like 'margin of error', 'tolerance', and 'equation' are define by mathematics itself as designations, like defining what 'addition' means. Words like 'heat', 'radiance', 'energy', 'force', 'entropy', 'frequency', 'wavelength', 'emissivity', 'temperature', 'quantum', etc. are defined by science by designation. They each have a specific meaning. Words like 'acid', 'aklaline', 'buffer', 'carbonate', 'titration', 'equilibria', 'density', etc. are defined by chemistry, a branch of physics. They too have a specific meaning, like other words defined by science. Words like 'climate change', 'global warming', 'climate science', 'expert', 'pollution', and 'greenhouse gas', have no meaning. They are all meaningless buzzwords. JackFou wrote: tmiddels had a go at it and you didn't even care. He had a go at it and failed miserably. You had a go at it and failed the same way. You can't define a word using another meaningless word. You can't define a word with itself. JackFou wrote: I'll try to keep it simple, so maybe you can even agree: Climate is average of the weather conditions in any given location over long-term periods (typically 30+ years). Define 30+ years in terms of defining 'climate'. Define 'location' in terms of 'climate'. What is it's size? What is it's coordinates? To define a 'change' in anything, you must define the starting and ending points in time of that 'change'. These must be absolute points, they cannot be a vague description of a length of time. You must also describe why these points in time are significant, and why any other points in time are not significant. You must also describe a quantity. Otherwise, 'change' has no meaning. Any phrase with 'change' in it (or 'warming' in it, since that implies a 'change'), likewise has no meaning. JackFou wrote: Specifically in terms of temperature, precipitation patterns, air pressure and so on. 'Precipitation patterns' is not a quantity. It is a meaningless buzzword. 'Precipitation' has a definite meaning and a quantity associated with it. JackFou wrote: Climate change are long-term trends in those quantities. Define 'a long time'. Define the points in time you are using. That is the only way to describe a 'change'. You are attempting to define 'climate change' as 'climate change'. Not possible. That's a circular definition. JackFou wrote: For example if we keep measuring the temperature in a certain location and we see that over 30 or 50 or 100 years there's trend upwards or downwards. That would be considered climate change. Which? 30? 50? 100? Which year, month, day, minute, and second are you starting with? Which year, month, day, minute, and second are you ending with? Temperature is an instantaneous measurement. Which two measurements are you comparing? Why are these two measurements significant? Why are any other two measurements not signifcant? How you are measuring the temperature of the Earth? That's not possible. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Why don't you just jump to the chase and explain to everyone on this board why we should abandon capitalism and surrender national sovereignty to the European Union? We can then dispense with all the otherwise irrelevant formalities. There's a guy who wrote several books about that, at least the first part, anyway. His name was Karl Marx. Others have copied his philosophies as well in books. JackFou wrote: The main issues with capitalism in my opinion is that it values profits higher than human life. Right out of Marx. Like you, he teaches that profit is 'evil' and somehow 'costs human life'. JackFou wrote: With regards to the European Union, while I do think that nation states and their sovereignty seem a bit quaint in an age of globalization, I don't think forming a "super state" is necessarily any better. Except the 'super state' where you are a member of the 'elite', dictating to the rest of the schmucks in the state how they will live, work, die, what they believe in, etc.; in other words, fascism by oligarchy. Right out of Marx. Fascism is on the road to communism. JackFou wrote: So yeah, no, you won't get a flaming defense of the EU out of me, sorry. He is not talking about the European Union. He is talking about European oligarchies and dictatorships. Like me, he supports that form of government known as a federated republic. Something that most European countries (and the EU itself) don't enjoy. Like me, he supports the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several States. Like me, he understands what capitalism really is: the creation of wealth. It is free people conducting free activities to increase the wealth by creating it. Republic forms of government are conducive to capitalism and reject socialism, which is theft of wealth. Capitalism doesn't even need a government at all. Pioneers came out West, where there was no government, no cities, no anything, and created wealth. They created so much they built the cities out West that you see today. They formed their own governments too, and later joined the Union. All that from nothing but weeds, forests, wild animals, sometimes hostile indians, whatever seed they brought, and a lot of hard work. When the 'Mormons' came into the Salt Lake valley, they stopped there. They didn't go on to chase gold in California. The soil was so hard there they broke their shovels trying to plant their crops. It was the last seed they had. Out of that, they build a series of shining cities, all up and down in that valley. They became a crossroads in the West...not only for the roads and later the railroads themselves, but for communications systems today. Most central trunk phone lines travel through Salt Lake now. All from nothing but hardpan desert, a nearby mountain range that caught some rain and snow, an incredible faith in their leaders and in God, and a LOT of hard work. There was no government except for what THEY formed later, and that by constitution. That's capitalism. That's what it is. It is the only system that creates wealth. It was no different for the colonies. You owe a LOT to these people. What they built you can sit in on your computer and work yourself up to condemning what they did and what they were. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

21-05-2020 23:54
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Define 'climate change'. "Climate" is the weather long term (annually on Earth) for the subject matter identified (could be Denver, or the whole planet at the bottom of the atmosphere) What is the climate for the whole planet "at the bottom of the atmosphere"? Desert? Tropical? Glacial? tmiddles wrote: "Weather" describes a number of different attributes including: temperature, humidity, wind, pressure, and so on. At a specific location at a specific point in time. tmiddles wrote: "Climate Change" can be read literally as a change in the weather long term for something (the reader waiting to hear what). However it's recognized here on Climate-Debate.com as being the subject matter title for an increase in the temperature of Earth. You continue to ask this stupid question. So let me ask one of you: Define "Climate Debate" ITN I will remind you where you are: climate-debate.com You signed up, so it must mean something to you. Define "climate change". Describe how a subjective non-quantifiable thing such as climate can change.
21-05-2020 23:55
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: So 'climate change' is not 'climate change'???? What the hell IS 'climate change' then?!? I feel genuinely sorry for you since you are so utterly challenged when it comes to reading comprehension even in what is presumably your own native language. Define 'climate change'. Do you understand the difference between "global change in climate" and "change in global climate"? Do you notice the different word order in both cases? Are you aware the the order of words in a sentence or expression has an influence on the meaning? There is no such thing as as "global climate".
22-05-2020 00:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	JackFou wrote: tmiddles wrote: Incidentally I do not concur with you Jack that there is not a global climate as a "climate" is simply the aggregate weather for a region over a specified time period (on Earth annually). You instantly realize Earth as a whole has a climate when you compare it to another planet. "How does the climate on Earth compare to the climate on Venus?" It is implied that the questioner means from the ground level and you could make quite a few global comparisons between the two planets at ground level, globally, that would define them. That's fair enough. It can make sense to discuss these things with someone who's intellectually honest and isn't just looking for a 'gotcha'. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself and tmiddles. JackFou wrote: I think my main issue with the whole "climate" thing is that you can get lost in endless arguments about what the terms "climate" or "climate change" should or shouldn't encompass, how big of a region you should consider for any given climate zone etc. So all of these shall remain undefined. Okay. That means any further comments you make using these words are void arguments. JackFou wrote: I think it makes more sense to discuss what's going on in terms of concrete variables such as temperature, atmospheric composition, annual precipitation etc. etc. Okay. Please describe to me how you are measuring the temperature of the Earth. Please describe to me how you are measuring the atmospheric composition of the entire Earth. Please describe to me how you are measuring the total annual precipitation of the entire Earth. JackFou wrote: At the end of the day, what seems important are issues like are will sea level rise render large portions of what is now coastal cities unlivable, Please describe to me what valid reference you are using to measure sea level of the Earth. You seem to be arguing that Noah's flood actually occurred. If so, you should know that God made a promise that no such flood would ever come again, and placed the rainbow in the sky as a token of that promise. JackFou wrote: will rising temperatures lead to increased droughts and crop failure and threaten food supply, Why would it? Higher temperatures mean increased evaporation from the oceans. Tropical rainforests have quite a lot of precipitation, far more than Antarctica, the driest desert in the world. JackFou wrote: will water shortages make significant parts of the planet uninhabitable and cause large scale migration and so on and so forth. If that is true, explain why we built Phoenix, AZ.; Los Angeles, CA; Las Vegas, NV...all cities where no significant amount of water was visible at the time...just enough for a few settlers. Why do you think it will suddenly stop raining in Seattle, WA? JackFou wrote: Arguing ad infinitum about the definition of the term "climate" doesn't really get you anywhere. You have already established that you gave up trying to define any of your buzzwords. JackFou wrote: We know that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is real Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy. Define 'greenhouse effect' in a way that is compatible with existing science, or in a way that falsifies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. JackFou wrote: as it follows directly from fundamental laws of physics. You are denying physics. Specifically, you are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. JackFou wrote: We know that increasing temperatures will cause changes in evaporation and precipitation patterns etc. Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy. Define 'global warming'. Define 'precipitation pattern' I can heat a piece of iron until it is yellow hot and weld another piece of iron to it. Obviously it is undergoing a change in temperature from the moment I began to apply heat with my torch to the moment I begin to weld. No increase or decrease in precipitation was noted. JackFou wrote: Those are really more the issues I'm interested in rather than trying to figure out what is and what isn't "climate" or whether there is such a thing as "a global climate". You have already declared you gave up trying to define these words. They therefore remain undefined. Yet you continue to try to use them. 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
22-05-2020 00:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:There is no such thing as global weather. Why is that? Because it's to large and too varied? What are the ITN requirements for there to be "weather"? What is the global weather right now? Please describe how you measured each quantity of that global weather. You must show the instrumentation used, how bias was eliminated in your collection methodology, the variances must be declared and justified, the instrument tolerance must be declared and justified, the margin of error value must be calculated, the raw data must be available for perusal as well as the method of collecting it, and the method must show the data pertains to conditions right now, and the math for the summary itself must be shown. Let's keep it simple. Let's start with just the temperature. Having accomplished that, then you can show similar information for wind speed, wind direction, barometric pressure, precipitation over a given time period, such as the period between 5.20.2110UTC to 5.21.2110UTC (the current time as of this writing), and types, layers, and coverage of clouds observed at 5.21.2110UTC. You should also show accumulated snowfall from 5.20.2110UTC to 5.21.2110UTC for the entire Earth. Creating URLS is not a falsification. Creating pointers to previous unsuccessful attempts is not falsification or a proof. Go ahead. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Climate Change" can be read literally as a change in the weather long term... Circular definition. You cannot define a buzzword with another buzzword. "Weather" nor "temperature" are "buzzword"s. I defined both "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" as changes in temperature/weather. I do not define them with each other. Yes you do. You cannot define a buzzword with another buzzword or with itself. tmiddles wrote: You would acknowledge that the ground level of Earth has a temperature would you not? I did not say do we know it exactly! I said it exists. Lie. You have said exactly what it is. Please describe how you measured this. tmiddles wrote: "long term" is dependent on your subject. For Earth is Annual because we have an annual cycle. Not a fixed point in time. To describe a 'change', you must use fixed points in time. Why is 'annual' a 'long time' in terms of 'climate'? What makes 'annual' significant? What makes 'millenium' not significant? What makes 'hourly' not significant? tmiddles wrote: The Climate of a cigar humidor doesn't change so you wouldn't need a long term time frame at all. 1 day would works if the door being opened a few times has an impact. A cigar humidifier is not a climate. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Define "Climate Debate" ITN ...a forum where the Church of Global Warming is preached by some, So you knew what to expect. Of course. So? tmiddles wrote: You understood well that "Climate Debate" would be a header for a grouping of topics. Yes. So? tmiddles wrote: Guess what! It has a definition for you no different than mine. Okay. We agree. Now define 'climate change', 'global warming', 'greenhouse effect', 'pollution', etc. Remember, you must remain compatible with mathematics, science, and logic. You cannot define 'greenhouse effect', for example, that denies existing theories of science without falsifying those theories of science. Simply changing what these theories are is not falsifying them. No URLS. Go ahead. 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 22-05-2020 00:28
22-05-2020 00:36
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	I suspect that he will "ipiddle" out, per usual...
22-05-2020 00:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21599)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Neither you nor Jack are debating. You are both preaching. And you can't make arguments against a preacher? Into the Night wrote:So you would include 'Earth climate' and 'Venus climate' in such things as 'desert climate', 'marine climate', 'tropical climate', etc? I simply think of "climate" as meaning the weather dimensions (temp, wind ect.) over the long term. Basically as long as it takes for a climate to show what it's made of. What is a 'desert climate' made of? What is a 'marine climate' made of? Please describe this in terms of fixed points in time, so you can describe properly what 'long time' means. tmiddles wrote: So for Earth anywhere that is a least 24 hours and usually 365 days. Not fixed points in time. You must use fixed points in time to describe any 'change'. tmiddles wrote: The climate in a museum, should a art preservationist need to know, might be something you could determine with just 1 hour of data as it's artificially controlled. Is that 1 hour after the HVAC system fails? 1/2 hour before it fails and 1/2 hour after it fails? Why one hour? What fixed points in time are you using? Why are those points in time significant? Why are any other points in time not signifcant? tmiddles wrote: The bottom line for me is there is no point in talking ONLY about "climate" ever. It simply introduces the information you will deal with directly next. Usually on this board it's temperature. It would make as much sense to object to words like "culinary" or "specifications". Those words both have specific meanings. You can't define 'climate' as either 'culinary' or 'specification'. tmiddles wrote: So yes: Earth, Denver, Venus, the mohave desert, the average of all deserts on earth, ... Those are all things you could introduce by calling them a "climate" before you talk about the dimensions and time frame you are interested in. The sea has often been called a 'liquid desert'. There also such things as a 'desert island', complete with palm trees, jungle, animals, and plenty of drinking water. There are such deserts as Antarctica, where some of the coldest temperatures are measured, and Death Valley, where the hottest temperature has been measured. Just what is the 'average of all deserts', quantitatively? Do you consider Denver a desert? tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:Since there is no such thing as a global weather,... Who said that? There is global weather. You did. tmiddles wrote: Variety does not mean something ceases to exist or that it does not have a range and an average. Word salad. tmiddles wrote: Someone might laugh to describe the full range of temperatures on Earth but that would be until we compare it to another planet. Then that descriptive range is very meaningful. How? Please describe how you determined the full range of temperatures on Earth. Please do the same for Venus. tmiddles wrote: Denver has a range of temperatures too! Do the same for Denver. 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
22-05-2020 01:06
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: Words have meaning. Good, we agree on that. Into the Night wrote: They also have a history on how that meaning came about. No objection there. Into the Night wrote: No dictionary defines any word. So if you don't know the meaning of a word, where would you look it up? Into the Night wrote: You can't just arbitrarily redefine them And yet that is exactly what you try to do all the time. Into the Night wrote: and you can't define key words and phrases you repeatedly use. If you look closely, you'll find that I generally try to avoid terms like "global climate" because I know exactly what bringing them up leads to with people like you. Your post is precisely the kind of waste of effort in an attempt to dance around meanings I previously mentioned. JackFou wrote: I think my main issue with the whole "climate" thing is that you can get lost in endless arguments about what the terms "climate" or "climate change" should or shouldn't encompass, how big of a region you should consider for any given climate zone etc. Into the Night wrote: Define 30+ years in terms of defining 'climate'. Define 'location' in terms of 'climate'. What is it's size? What is it's coordinates? Q.E.D. Into the Night wrote: Words like 'heat', 'radiance', 'energy', 'force', 'entropy', 'frequency', 'wavelength', 'emissivity', 'temperature', 'quantum', etc. are defined by science by designation. They each have a specific meaning. Funny you'd mention "heat" because your understanding of what it means doesn't line up with how the term is used in physics. If you do some digging, you'll also find that there are several ways how "temperature" is understood and explained, depending on the context. Into the Night wrote: Words like 'climate change', 'global warming', 'climate science', 'expert', 'pollution', and 'greenhouse gas', have no meaning. They are all meaningless buzzwords. I can define greenhouse gas for you, if you want. It's any gas in the atmosphere which absorbs and emits EM radiation within the spectrum of radiance from earth's surface. Considering that most of the radiation given off by earth's surface is in the IR range of the EM spectrum, that would be equivalent to being pretty much any gas in the atmosphere that absorbs and emits in the IR frequency band. Questions about whether there exists such a thing as a "global climate" or an "average global temperature" and whether we can ever define/know it are mostly of philosophical nature. I'm more interested in the science. Science tells us that IR active gases in the atmosphere lead to an increased amount of incoming radiance at the surface of the earth compared to a situation without IR active gases in the atmosphere. This in turn must result in an equally increased outgoing radiance from the surface which in turn requires an increased temperature of the radiating surface. Into the Night wrote: Right out of Marx. Like you, he teaches that profit is 'evil' and somehow 'costs human life'. I don't believe for one second that you've read anything from Marx. Maybe 'The Communist Manifesto' but I doubt even that. All you claim to know about Marx and what he said is most likely straight from the mouth of people like Dennis Prager, Steven Crowder, Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones, Ben Shapiro etc. Into the Night wrote: He is not talking about the European Union. He is talking about European oligarchies and dictatorships. He literally used the words "European Union". Now you're trying to redefine what that means. Into the Night wrote: Words have meaning. Into the Night wrote: They also have a history on how that meaning came about. Into the Night wrote: You can't just arbitrarily redefine them Oops! Into the Night wrote: Like me, he understands what capitalism really is: the creation of wealth. Meaningless buzzword fallacy. "Capitalism" is an economic system, defined by private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Into the Night wrote: It was no different for the colonies. If you mean that "the creation of wealth" got properly started by plundering foreign lands and forcing the population into slavery, then yes. Edited on 22-05-2020 01:43
22-05-2020 01:07
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	gfm7175 wrote: There is no such thing as as "global climate". Shoo! We don't need another annoying bird in here!
22-05-2020 01:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: What is the climate for the whole planet "at the bottom of the atmosphere"? Desert? Tropical? Glacial? Habitable. Climate is the temperature, wind, pressure, humidity and so on. It's the weather. The Climate of Earth is survivable for humans. The Climate of Venus is not. Are you still confused? The climate of Earth has a temperature range from -25C to 45C with a mean temp of approximately 14C. The mean barometric pressure is approximately 15 lbs per square inch. The range is fairly narrow at sea level but drops at higher altitudes of course (which are technically still the bottom of the atmosphere at those locations). Still scratching your head? The Climate of Venus would crush you roast you. ITN can tell you about the climate of Venus: Into the Night wrote:The surface pressure is 90 times the surface pressure on Earth. Into the Night wrote:...the high temperatures of Venus. from: the DATA MINE You are basically asking: So what's the weather? Dry, Wet, Windy, make up your mind! Sometimes weather is consistent in a narrow range over a large geographic area. Sometimes it's not. Of course "narrow range" is pretty subjective. gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: "Weather" describes a number of different attributes including: temperature, humidity, wind, pressure, and so on. At a specific location at a specific point in time. No not "specific" but simply "specified" and climate means the weather over a span of time. If you want to pretend weather is only ever for an instant in time at a specific point in space, nothing more, go ahead, but the English speaking world does not concur with you. "How's the weather looking for Sunday Mr. Marx?", "well should be warmer than last week" gfm7175 wrote: Define "climate change". Describe how a subjective non-quantifiable thing such as climate can change. What you think of the climate may be subjective but Climate is not. It is the weather over a period of time. That is specific and quantifiable.
22-05-2020 01:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: What is the global weather right now? Please describe how you measured each quantity of that global weather....Please describe how you determined the full range of temperatures on Earth. Please do the same for Venus. I don't know because I didn't measure it. Information would be limited of course. How many decimal places of accuracy do you require for the answer and why? Would you agree that the Earth does have a maximum, minum and mean temperature? That the same is true at ground/sea level globally for barometric pressure, wind, humidity? You aren't claiming that those things don't exist are you? I freely admit I only assume what they are roughly based on references found online but that does not mean they do not exist. Into the Night wrote:You must show the instrumentation used, ... See above. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:"Weather" nor "temperature" are "buzzword"s. I defined both "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" as changes in temperature/weather. I do not define them with each other. Yes you do. You cannot define a buzzword with another buzzword or with itself. Are you saying "weather" is a buzzword? I don't understand your point. What are the two buzzwords that are defining each other in your view? tmiddles wrote: You would acknowledge that the ground level of Earth has a temperature would you not? I did not say do we know it exactly! I said it exists. Lie. You have said exactly what it is. Please describe how you measured this.[/quote] Exactly? Like to how many decimal places do you assume I'm confident of the Earths mean temp? I can tell you I'm confident to the about +/- 5 degrees. Try quoting me when you want to claim I've said something. Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: "long term" is dependent on your subject. What makes 'millenium' not significant? What makes 'hourly' not significant? Up to you or anyone. That's why your stopping the conversation at the word "climate" is stupid. You should wait to hear what someone is about to talk about. If I'm talking to my AC technician for the office I'm going to be focused on the hottest moment in the work day, maybe a 2 hour span of time. It's up to the speaker what they are identifying as their subject. "Climate" does NOT have a universally defined subject. Neither does "Specifications", "Ingredients" or "Dimensions". Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: The Climate of a cigar humidor doesn't change so you wouldn't need a long term time frame at all. 1 day would works if the door being opened a few times has an impact. A cigar humidifier is not a climate. Sure it is. Why do you dispute that? Into the Night wrote:Now define 'climate change', 'global warming', 'greenhouse effect', 'pollution', etc. I have many times. You quote me where I'm using those words to make an argument and we'll see if you can even pretend to be confused. Edited on 22-05-2020 01:41

Page 1 of 7

Join the debate Satellites:

Threads	Replies	Last post
METHANE-TRACKING SATELLITES	1	30-05-2023 22:50
GRACE satellites to be shut down	1	16-09-2017 22:11