Remember me
▼ Content

Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally



Page 3 of 5<12345>
05-05-2019 23:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Albedo and satellites are science.


Albedo is a measurement. It cannot be done with satellites.

Satellites are instrumentation in space. They are not science. They are satellites.

Science is not a satellite or a measurement. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Theories that you deny.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2019 23:32
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Albedo is a measure of light that is reflected and satellites can measure light.

I guess your definition of albedo is a magical force.
06-05-2019 00:20
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
dehammer wrote:
Albedo is a measure of light that is reflected and satellites can measure light.

I guess your definition of albedo is a magical force.


Albedo of Earth is always changing (clouds/ice/snow...) Satellites can measure albedo only at the moment the measurement was taken. NASA cooks up an "average" value for albedo, then uses it to spit out a "precise" temperature measurement.

They are using an unknown value to calculate and unknown value.
06-05-2019 01:12
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
So its all magic? there is no science?
06-05-2019 01:54
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
We would first need to agree on the definition of science. I tend to agree with ITN that science is a set of falsifiable theories and has nothing to do with study or observation or learning.
06-05-2019 02:14
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
enjoy your magic world.
06-05-2019 05:40
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
dehammer wrote:
enjoy your magic world.

Enjoy your magic contraption.
06-05-2019 06:36
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Really? You call all science "magic". Can you troll any more obviously?
06-05-2019 08:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Albedo is a measure of light that is reflected and satellites can measure light.

I guess your definition of albedo is a magical force.


Satellites cannot tell what is reflected, what is refracted, or what is actually emitted from the Earth due to temperature. The only way to tell the difference is to first accurately know the temperature of the Earth. That's not possible.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 08:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
GasGuzzler wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Albedo is a measure of light that is reflected and satellites can measure light.

I guess your definition of albedo is a magical force.


Albedo of Earth is always changing (clouds/ice/snow...) Satellites can measure albedo only at the moment the measurement was taken.
Satellites cannot measure emissivity or albedo at all, not even for an instant. To get this value, you MUST first accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface (the Earth).
GasGuzzler wrote:
NASA cooks up an "average" value for albedo, then uses it to spit out a "precise" temperature measurement.
Worse. NASA is simply manufacturing a value for albedo.
GasGuzzler wrote:
They are using an unknown value to calculate and unknown value.

Correct.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 09:01
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
So its all magic? there is no science?

There is no science. It is not magic either. It's magick. I mean to use the spelling in the full meaning of it.

Magic is a stage act or a street act. In magic, they TELL you they are lying.

Magick is the mysterious way that something is supposed to be happening. They tell you it's the truth when actually it is a lie.

See Aliester Crowley's work, Thelema.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 09:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
GasGuzzler wrote:
We would first need to agree on the definition of science. I tend to agree with ITN that science is a set of falsifiable theories and has nothing to do with study or observation or learning.


I'd love to take the credit, but Karl Popper deserves most of it.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 09:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Really? You call all science "magic". Can you troll any more obviously?


YOU are trolling. Now you are claiming others are calling science 'magick'. You are a liar, dude. You are putting words in other people's mouths strictly to get a response.

That kind of behavior is called 'trolling'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That is all science is. Among those theories are the 1st law of Thermodynamics. It states:
Ud = Q - W
In other words, the change of energy in a system is equal to the energy put INTO the system from somewhere, minus the work performed. It is the law of energy conservation put into the realm of thermal energy, and actually applies to all energy. Your magick machine is ignoring this law by creating energy out of nothing.

Another is the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. It states that entropy must always increase or stay in the same in any given system. It can never decrease. Your machine is a system that is attempting to decrease entropy. Not possible, dude.

Another is the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It states:

r = sc * e * t ^ 4

In other words, emitted radiance is proportional to the temperature of a body. This equation affects all bodies. It has no frequency term. It is the result of integrating Planck's law over all frequencies. It does not include reflected light or refracted light that may be coming from a body. You cannot use this equation to find the temperature of anything without determining how much of the light you see from a body is emitted vs how much is reflected or refracted.

Another one is Kirchoff's law. It states that when you combine all nodes in a system, you simply sum them together to create a composite value that is equal to the system as a whole.

You have denied all four of these laws. You still deny all four of these laws. These are theories of science. You cannot just discard them.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 09:32
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Any real person here want to have a conversation about this with me?
06-05-2019 14:59
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1231)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
dehammer wrote:
Albedo is a measure of light that is reflected and satellites can measure light.

I guess your definition of albedo is a magical force.


Albedo of Earth is always changing (clouds/ice/snow...) Satellites can measure albedo only at the moment the measurement was taken.
Satellites cannot measure emissivity or albedo at all, not even for an instant. To get this value, you MUST first accurately know the temperature of the emitting surface (the Earth).
GasGuzzler wrote:
NASA cooks up an "average" value for albedo, then uses it to spit out a "precise" temperature measurement.
Worse. NASA is simply manufacturing a value for albedo.
GasGuzzler wrote:
They are using an unknown value to calculate and unknown value.

Correct.

WTF??!!! Seriously? That is worse than I thought it was.

So what temp measurement would they need to accurately measure albedo? Earth surface? Atmosphere near the surface? All altitudes of atmosphere?
06-05-2019 15:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote: The sun might be providing it, but a large percentage would be reflected back at space.


I notice that you used the words "would be" as opposed to "is," ... because you know that it is not, but that you wish it were.

Science predicts the future and thus speaks in the future tense; it does not speak in the subjunctive. Religions, however, reside firmly within the subjunctive.

dehammer wrote: Insignificant amounts would be absorbed for it to do much melt and what was, would be lost at night, leaving the ice too cold to melt.


More "would be," more subjunctive and more religion.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-05-2019 15:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote:They can indeed tell the difference between what is reflected and what is from the atmosphere.

First of all, photons do not come with little tags that identify their source of origin. I'm amazed that you think they do.

For the sake of argument, let's assume photons come with your little ID tags. Who do you believe "they" are who can "indeed" read these tags? Let me guess; only the enlightened believers in Global Warming have the wisdom and capacity to know from whence photons come! Am I right?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-05-2019 15:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
GasGuzzler wrote:
WTF??!!! Seriously? That is worse than I thought it was.

So what temp measurement would they need to accurately measure albedo? Earth surface? Atmosphere near the surface? All altitudes of atmosphere?

Oh, pick me, pick me!

I have had the misfortune to actually have to listen (i.e. read) this particular line of reasoning, in earnest I might add, from too many warmizombies who take this as gospel truth "settled Climate Science" worthy of underlining in their personal copies of Wikipedia.

Warning up front: It involves an egregious abuse of Stefan-Boltzmann and an complete reliance on speaking in the subjunctive. It goes like this:

It starts with the required dogmatic belief that the earth would be an absolute ice ball hell, a frozen wasteland, an Arctic tundra, a planet suffering from hypothermia ... were it not for the Greenhouse Effect cradling the planet in a soft blanket of loving warmth ... without which we would all freeze to death.

To make their case, they arbitrarily select a freezing cold, sub-zero temperature that they wish to present as the temperature that the earth should be. Then they plug that temperature value into Stefan-Boltzmann and work backward to calculate the required emissivity value for the earth to have that temperature. Never mind that Stefan-Boltzmann calculates neither temperature nor emissivity but rather calculates radiance based on temperature.

So they declare the earth's emissivity to be that value as though everybody just knows this to be true. In fact, nobody knows the earth's emissivity. It has never been measured accurately. Humanity does not have the technology to measure it to any useful accuracy. This does not prevent warmizombies from declaring their desired value to be the Truth, the Light and the Way!

Then they convert their emissivity value (which is a science term) to "albedo" (a religious term that is not used in science) to avoid even the appearance of using any actual science.

From the MANUAL:

Albedo: Noun.
In the Climate Science lexicon, an expression of one's devotion to the Global Warming faith. "Albedo" is used to express one's dedication to scientific illiteracy in the same manner that some Christian clergy take vows of poverty or celibacy. The word "albedo" is often used to virtue-signal to other warmizombies that no amount of actual science will ever be considered acceptable and that warmizombies and Climate-lemmings can trust him/her to adhere to the Global Warming faith.

Note: Literally, albedo is a numeric value computed as 1.0-emissivity. Unfortunately, the term "emissivity" is an evil component of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which is actual science that shows Greenhouse Effect to not be possible, ergo the term "emissivity" is considered sacrilegious and is avoided to the maximum extent possible.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-05-2019 15:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
duplicate


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

Edited on 06-05-2019 15:53
06-05-2019 15:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote:Albedo and satellites are science.

"Albedo" is religion. Satellites are technology.

Neither are science.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-05-2019 15:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
GasGuzzler wrote:
We would first need to agree on the definition of science. I tend to agree with ITN that science is a set of falsifiable theories and has nothing to do with study or observation or learning.


You are correct. The full-bore sacrilege comes in realizing that science has nothing to do with data.

Stefan-Boltzmann states Radiance = Emissivity * Boltzmann * Temp^4

This is science. I'm still not seeing the data in there anywhere.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-05-2019 18:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Any real person here want to have a conversation about this with me?

Everyone here is a real person. Even the socks.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 18:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Science predicts the future and thus speaks in the future tense; it does not speak in the subjunctive. Religions, however, reside firmly within the subjunctive.


Science has no proofs. It can only describe, it cannot predict in and of itself. It must turn to mathematics or logic to gain the power of prediction. That is the formula you see in science.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 18:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
dehammer wrote:They can indeed tell the difference between what is reflected and what is from the atmosphere.

First of all, photons do not come with little tags that identify their source of origin. I'm amazed that you think they do.

For the sake of argument, let's assume photons come with your little ID tags. Who do you believe "they" are who can "indeed" read these tags? Let me guess; only the enlightened believers in Global Warming have the wisdom and capacity to know from whence photons come! Am I right?


So far as I've seen. Not even the Church of the Ozone hole went this far.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 20:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Science predicts the future and thus speaks in the future tense; it does not speak in the subjunctive. Religions, however, reside firmly within the subjunctive.


Science has no proofs. It can only describe, it cannot predict in and of itself. It must turn to mathematics or logic to gain the power of prediction. That is the formula you see in science.


My disagreement with you is only in the wording. Outside of that, my agreement with you is complete.

Math is the typical formal specification used to perform calculations that render the exact numerical answers, i.e. the prediction ... however the concept that is expressed via the math can be expressed in English (or Spanish, or Mongolian or whatever natural language) and still be a correct prediction of nature, e.g.

The force of gravity between two masses is proportional to the product of the two masses yet inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Ergo, I can predict that two bodies will "pull" towards each other, and will accelerate towards each other to some extent ... with greater masses having greater pull but the distance between them being a bigger factor.

Without the math I can't tell you exactly how much, but I can predict nature. In fact, I can tell when a warmizombie is bulslhitting me without ever doing any math because I know that his "prediction" is not my "prediction" of what will happen. The math is just the formal specification for the actual prediction.

Again, using your semantics, you are completely correct in that the calculation per the math of the model is, in fact, the specific prediction in each case. I have no disagreement; that is absolutely correct.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
06-05-2019 20:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Science predicts the future and thus speaks in the future tense; it does not speak in the subjunctive. Religions, however, reside firmly within the subjunctive.


Science has no proofs. It can only describe, it cannot predict in and of itself. It must turn to mathematics or logic to gain the power of prediction. That is the formula you see in science.


My disagreement with you is only in the wording. Outside of that, my agreement with you is complete.

Math is the typical formal specification used to perform calculations that render the exact numerical answers, i.e. the prediction ... however the concept that is expressed via the math can be expressed in English (or Spanish, or Mongolian or whatever natural language) and still be a correct prediction of nature, e.g.

The force of gravity between two masses is proportional to the product of the two masses yet inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Ergo, I can predict that two bodies will "pull" towards each other, and will accelerate towards each other to some extent ... with greater masses having greater pull but the distance between them being a bigger factor.

Without the math I can't tell you exactly how much, but I can predict nature. In fact, I can tell when a warmizombie is bulslhitting me without ever doing any math because I know that his "prediction" is not my "prediction" of what will happen. The math is just the formal specification for the actual prediction.

Again, using your semantics, you are completely correct in that the calculation per the math of the model is, in fact, the specific prediction in each case. I have no disagreement; that is absolutely correct.


To a certain extent, it is the wording. Describing the equation is not using it to calculate something (i.e. to predict).

The theory describes, but can't predict. The use of the math is what predicts. That can only happen because mathematics is a closed functional system and has formal proofs.

Science in and of itself has no proofs. It only describes, it does not predict. The closest science comes to an actual proof is a falsification of a theory.

That can happen by the use of mathematics, logic, or finding some conflicting evidence that just can't be ignored. THAT evidence can certain arise through an observation, but you must take the problems with phenomenology into account with that observation.

As you have already stated in the past, falsification through an observation is a judgement call. It is that because of the nature of an observation.


The Parrot Killer
06-05-2019 20:56
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
photons do not have a tag, BUT the molecules do have a type of tag. Its called a spectrum. The co2 spectrum is different than the water and the ice is different from both. What they do is fire a flash of light that has a frequency that is not part of ice water or any molecule in the atmosphere and if it is reflected, it has to come from co2. Another way is to send a frequency that many things can absorb, then see what they emit. As an example, water vapor and co2 both absorb certain frequencies, but water vapor will not emit anything immediately. Co2 will.

Using these two, you can determine how much co2 is in a volume of are.

Using a few other tricks and you can tell how much ho2 is in the air.

After a few more tricks, you know the make up of the atmosphere. Then you look at frequencies that only ice will reflect and you have a good idea of how much ice there is. Lab test will give you the data for how much the albedo of ice is. Combine that with the data from satellites and you can tell what the albedo of the ice fields are.

Then you use the data for ocean.

Then you compare the frequencies that plants reflect.
Then you repeat that with data from soil, concrete and many other parts of the earth.

All of this goes on constantly and takes microseconds per pulse.

Once again your lack of science is showing.
06-05-2019 22:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
photons do not have a tag, BUT the molecules do have a type of tag. Its called a spectrum.

Nope. No molecule has a spectrum. Molecules are not light. They may emit light according a signature spectrum, or they may emit a wide spectrum in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Here you are demonstrating you can't tell the difference between an LED and incandescent light.
dehammer wrote:
The co2 spectrum is different than the water and the ice is different from both.

Irrelevant. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
dehammer wrote:
What they do is fire a flash of light that has a frequency that is not part of ice water or any molecule in the atmosphere and if it is reflected, it has to come from co2.

Argument from ignorance fallacy. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Denial of Planck's law
dehammer wrote:
Another way is to send a frequency that many things can absorb, then see what they emit.

Anything above absolute zero emits light. That is wideband light. It does not follow a molecules signature of harmonic emission of light.
dehammer wrote:
As an example, water vapor and co2 both absorb certain frequencies, but water vapor will not emit anything immediately. Co2 will.

You cannot store or trap energy, other than by converting it to potential energy (which has no temperature). Water does not store additional potential energy that way.
dehammer wrote:
Using these two, you can determine how much co2 is in a volume of are.

Argument of ignorance fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
Using a few other tricks and you can tell how much ho2 is in the air.

I didn't know hos could fly. I'd think it would be safer to keep the poor things on the ground, or at least put them in an airplane.
dehammer wrote:
After a few more tricks, you know the make up of the atmosphere.

Science is not tricks. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
dehammer wrote:
Then you look at frequencies that only ice will reflect
and you have a good idea of how much ice there is.

What about other substances that absorb some or all of those frequencies? Wups.
dehammer wrote:
Lab test will give you the data for how much the albedo of ice is.

No, it won't. Go learn how emissivity is measured. Emissivity is the inverse of albedo. Failure to consider frequency range of light source. Compositional error fallacy. Be careful with this one. It easily leads to bigotry and racism.
dehammer wrote:
Combine that with the data from satellites and you can tell what the albedo of the ice fields are.

Satellites cannot measure emissivity (or albedo).
dehammer wrote:
Then you use the data for ocean.

False equivalence fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
Then you compare the frequencies that plants reflect.

Compositional error fallacy. Failure to consider frequency range of light source.
dehammer wrote:
Then you repeat that with data from soil, concrete and many other parts of the earth.

Same errors as with the plants.
dehammer wrote:
All of this goes on constantly and takes microseconds per pulse.

There is no magick satellite that measures emissivity.
dehammer wrote:
...deleted irrelevant link...Once again your lack of science is showing.

Inversion fallacy. Redefinition fallacies (magick <-> science, reflection <-> emission, harmonic emission <-> temperature emission, void -> Universal). Try speaking English, it works much better. Void proof fallacy (a type of circular argument fallacy). Argument from randU fallacy (use of unknown constant values). Insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-05-2019 22:10
06-05-2019 23:09
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Anyone around here know science better than foghorn here?
06-05-2019 23:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Anyone around here know science better than foghorn here?


Yeah. IBdaMann.


The Parrot Killer
07-05-2019 02:25
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
I really hope that is not Michael.
07-05-2019 18:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote:
photons do not have a tag, BUT the molecules do have a type of tag. Its called a spectrum.

So we are resolved on the issue of photons. Good.

Now that you have switched the topic to "molecules" ... what is your point?

dehammer wrote: The co2 spectrum is different than the water and the ice is different from both. What they do is fire a flash of light that has a frequency that is not part of ice water or any molecule in the atmosphere and if it is reflected, it has to come from co2.

There is no light frequency that is part of a molecule.

You seem to be describing a "CO2-detecting radar" ... yeah ... that doesn't exist.

dehammer wrote: Another way is to send a frequency that many things can absorb, then see what they emit. As an example, water vapor and co2 both absorb certain frequencies, but water vapor will not emit anything immediately. Co2 will.

Incorrect. You need to read up on Planck's Law and Stefan-Boltzmann.

Absorption is instantaneous. Emission is instantaneous. No substance can "trap" thermal energy; it always pours out (is emitted) per Stefan-Boltzmann and additionally via conduction for every contact that is made with other matter of lower temperature.

dehammer wrote: Combine that with the data from satellites and you can tell what the albedo of the ice fields are.


From the MANUAL:

Satellites: plural noun
Within Climate Science, the preferred cited source for asserting knowledge of the unknowable and for claiming certainty about the completely uncertain. Within the Global Warming religion, magickal "satellites" are often cited as the source of divine knowledge and wisdom that is unavailable to deniers. Whenever a warmizombie or Climate-lemming fabricates a "fact" that is otherwise unknowable/unmeasurable to any usable accuracy by today's technology, the preferred justification is "It's measured by satellites!" The mention of "satellites" is understood to rightly end all dissent on any given point.

Albedo: Noun.
In the Climate Science lexicon, an expression of one's devotion to the Global Warming faith. "Albedo" is used to express one's dedication to scientific illiteracy in the same manner that some Christian clergy take vows of poverty or celibacy. The word albedo is often used to virtue-signal to other warmizombies that no amount of actual science will ever be considered acceptable and that warmizombies and Climate-lemmings can trust him/her to adhere to the Global Warming faith.

Note: Literally, albedo is a numeric value computed as 1.0-emissivity. Unfortunately, the term emissivity is an evil component of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which is actual science that shows Greenhouse Effect to not be possible, ergo the term emissivity is considered sacrilegious and is avoided to the maximum extent possible.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-05-2019 19:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote: I really hope that is not Michael.

Did you have a question?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-05-2019 21:00
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
Now that you have switched the topic to "molecules" ... what is your point?
Albedo is the measurement of how much sunlight is being reflected by a surface, which means the molecules. They can tell what surface is reflecting at what altitude by the spectrum of its reflection, and by the absorption spectrum. Combining this data with radar/ladar altimeter reading and you can know what it is your looking at.

From the MANUAL:

So your a science denier. Good to know. Guess you believe in the flat earth and that the earth is 5000 years old.

Did you have a question?
I noticed your name has 2 n's at the end. If your Michael Mann, that would explain the lack of understanding of science.
07-05-2019 21:33
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3888)
dehammer wrote: Albedo is the measurement of how much sunlight is being reflected by a surface, which means the molecules.

Albedo is just (1.0 - emissivity) and is used to avoid using the term "emissivity" and to avoid using any science.

Emissivity is the percentage of electromagnetic energy a body absorbs. We do not care about the percentage of electromagnetic energy that is not absorbed because it does not affect the body.

Show me someone who insists on using "albedo" and I'll show you someone who is a scientifically illiterate moron who is terrified to incorporate science into his thought processes.

Science uses "emissivity." Religious Global Warming zealots use "albedo." Which one are you.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
07-05-2019 22:32
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
What ever you think michael
07-05-2019 23:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
Now that you have switched the topic to "molecules" ... what is your point?
Albedo is the measurement of how much sunlight is being reflected by a surface,

Nope. Albedo is simply the inverse of emissivity. Sunlight is not required. Any light will do.
dehammer wrote:
which means the molecules.

Moving the goalpost fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
They can tell what surface is reflecting at what altitude by the spectrum of its reflection,

Moving the goalpost fallacy. False equivalence fallacy. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no 'spectrum of reflection'. Buzzword fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
and by the absorption spectrum.

Absorption spectrums are only useful when the material is know. You don't know the materials in question. They do not indicate emissivity.
dehammer wrote:
Combining this data with radar/ladar altimeter reading and you can know what it is your looking at.

Altimeters are superfluous. Strawman fallacy.
dehammer wrote:
From the MANUAL:

So your a science denier. Good to know. Guess you believe in the flat earth and that the earth is 5000 years old.

Did you have a question?
I noticed your name has 2 n's at the end. If your Michael Mann, that would explain the lack of understanding of science.

Ah! We have numerologist in our midst! I'll bet you fall for swapping letters in the Bible and the books of Nostradamus to predict the the future as well!


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 00:51
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
It has nothing to do with numerology. What it has to do is someone trying to claim to be a scientist, but writing his own procedures, rather than using standard scientific procedures laid down by centuries of scientist and their predecessors to prevent fraud.

You seem so much like Mann in that aspect and your name has the same spelling, so I'm guessing your him.
08-05-2019 01:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8182)
dehammer wrote:
It has nothing to do with numerology.

Yes it does.
dehammer wrote:
What it has to do is someone trying to claim to be a scientist,

A scientist is anyone that creates a theory of science. It does not require credentials, university degrees, licenses, government blessings or sanctification, or even the approval of other scientists.
dehammer wrote:
but writing his own procedures,

All scientists write their own procedures. You think a new theory is in some sort of instruction book?
dehammer wrote:
rather than using standard scientific procedures

There is no such thing. Buzzword fallacy. Science is not a 'procedure' or a 'method'. It is a set of falsifiable theories. Any procedure is legit. Any method is legit.
dehammer wrote:
laid down by centuries of scientist and their predecessors to prevent fraud.

Science is not scientists or their predecessors. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You deny quite a few of them, most notably the 1st law of thermodynamics.
dehammer wrote:
You seem so much like Mann in that aspect and your name has the same spelling, so I'm guessing your him.

Numerology and trolling.


The Parrot Killer
08-05-2019 01:58
dehammer
★★★☆☆
(431)
All scientists write their own procedures. You think a new theory is in some sort of instruction book?
Theories are not procedures. Procedures are things like never changing the subject you are measuring or the method of measuring it.

A good example is the hockey stick. It violate both of these procedures. It goes from climate to temperature and from proxies to instruments.

Once again, you have proven your anti science is religious.
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate Snow: predicted decline globally, increase locally:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Burning fossil fuel reduce O2 and increase CO2 and CO2 is a cooling gas so why420-06-2019 06:30
Global warming back to medieval warm period will increase Russia population 4 fold128-05-2019 19:30
Almost all glaciers are in sharp decline10418-05-2019 04:02
O2C predicted to rise in the future?1622-04-2019 22:19
Medieval warm period was way hotter than today's climate. 1 C hotter globally. So why IPCC do not ack019-04-2019 16:33
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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