Remember me
▼ Content

They Still Say it's going to get Hotter



Page 1 of 3123>
They Still Say it's going to get Hotter15-08-2017 09:07
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
https://thinkprogress.org/super-heatwaves-coming-study-warns-955962bd275a/

They aren't really helping their cause by trying to claim that if we all just get along and work together that we can limit Climate Change to 2C. Anyone with knowledge of how climate is driven knows for sure that the climate of our planet will continue to rise well beyond the imaginary 2C limit.

We not only have to stop producing CO2, but we also have to figure out how to remove it from the air efficiently, if we expect to really influence the next few centuries.

And yes, as the article points out, we need to get back in the game. At least that way we have a chance at being a part of the solution, instead of just adding to the problem.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 18:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
https://thinkprogress.org/super-heatwaves-coming-study-warns-955962bd275a/

They aren't really helping their cause by trying to claim that if we all just get along and work together that we can limit Climate Change to 2C. Anyone with knowledge of how climate is driven knows for sure that the climate of our planet will continue to rise well beyond the imaginary 2C limit.

We not only have to stop producing CO2, but we also have to figure out how to remove it from the air efficiently, if we expect to really influence the next few centuries.

And yes, as the article points out, we need to get back in the game. At least that way we have a chance at being a part of the solution, instead of just adding to the problem.


Then perhaps you can build yourself an airconditioned bomb shelter and outlast the rest of the human race whom you are sure are going to die from their evil deeds.

What a moron.
15-08-2017 21:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...

They aren't really helping their cause by trying to claim that if we all just get along and work together that we can limit Climate Change to 2C. Anyone with knowledge of how climate is driven knows for sure that the climate of our planet will continue to rise well beyond the imaginary 2C limit.

1) There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.
2) Climate isn't 'driven'. Climate is just weather over a long time. There is no 'global' weather.
3) It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
4) Your chicken entrails do not predict the future.
GreenMan wrote:
We not only have to stop producing CO2,

Ok. Let's see you do it. All you have to do is stop breathing. Assuming you manage that, then you can die from the cold instead.
GreenMan wrote:
but we also have to figure out how to remove it from the air efficiently,

Plants. You might also ask Praxair, they do this all the time.
GreenMan wrote:
if we expect to really influence the next few centuries.

Your chicken entrails tell you this?
GreenMan wrote:
And yes, as the article points out, we need to get back in the game.

What game? Joining your religion??? No thanks. I will remain an Outsider. I will not deny science like you do just to make people like you happy.
GreenMan wrote:
At least that way we have a chance at being a part of the solution, instead of just adding to the problem.

There is no problem. There never was.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
https://thinkprogress.org/super-heatwaves-coming-study-warns-955962bd275a/

They aren't really helping their cause by trying to claim that if we all just get along and work together that we can limit Climate Change to 2C. Anyone with knowledge of how climate is driven knows for sure that the climate of our planet will continue to rise well beyond the imaginary 2C limit.

We not only have to stop producing CO2, but we also have to figure out how to remove it from the air efficiently, if we expect to really influence the next few centuries.

And yes, as the article points out, we need to get back in the game. At least that way we have a chance at being a part of the solution, instead of just adding to the problem.


Then perhaps you can build yourself an airconditioned bomb shelter and outlast the rest of the human race whom you are sure are going to die from their evil deeds.

What a moron.


What about all that fallout caused by running all those air conditioned bomb shelters? That power has to come from somewhere!


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 21:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
1) There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.
2) Climate isn't 'driven'. Climate is just weather over a long time. There is no 'global' weather.
3) It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
4) Your chicken entrails do not predict the future.

There is no problem. There never was.


1. While you are correct that there is no global climate it is still possible to calculate a mean global temperature. That can stand-in for describing a global climate.

2. Use of words such as "driven" and "forcing" are just more of the True Believer fraud.

3. Of course there isn't. That doesn't mean we can't make reasonable approximations. But treating approximations as some sort of accurate measurements is again a fraud. This has been committed by agencies of the government using American taxpayer dollars and they must be prosecuted.

4. This is the problem. People like spot and greenman and the others do not know or understand science. They read some True Believer website (Many of them do not even allow any postings questioning AGW in any way) and then go on and on about how the Earth is going to die despite that no amount of science fact can penetrate their skulls. Let's just agree that they have more than enough ignorance to go around the entire religious community they belong to.
16-08-2017 00:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.
2) Climate isn't 'driven'. Climate is just weather over a long time. There is no 'global' weather.
3) It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
4) Your chicken entrails do not predict the future.

There is no problem. There never was.


1. While you are correct that there is no global climate it is still possible to calculate a mean global temperature. That can stand-in for describing a global climate.

No, it is not. We have nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis of any meaning.

Allow me to explain:
First, any statistical analysis must include as part of its result the margin of error. This is a number that calculated not from the data, and not from the instrumentation error, but from the possible variances in population.

In terms, of temperature, that means it is calculated from the possible temperature gradient per given distance. Since temperature gradients as steep as 20 deg F per mile has been observed, this makes a reasonable number for the possible variance.

No one knows how many thermometers are in the world. Not even the 'official' ones (ones operated by or for a government agency). This is the first number that must be obtained. I typically hear guesses like 'a few hundred thousand' or something along these lines.

Let's just assume 500,000 thermometers.

The surface area of the Earth is approx 197 million square miles. Statistical analysis requires a selection from the data by randN (same kind of random number as cards) and independent of any aspect of the data itself.

Time is significant. Storms move, air moves, the Earth moves, etc. All thermometers must be read simultaneously.

Location and grouping is significant. A hundred thermometers in Seattle and none in Yakima does not tell you the temperature in Yakima. Therefore, thermometers must be uniformly placed.

For 500,000 thermometers, that means one thermometer for every 394 sq mile.

The possible gradient is 20 deg F per mile (sq mile is fine here).

That means that one thermometer can be off by 394 * 20 deg F, or 788 deg F from the actual average. Obviously, this means the thermometer reading at that point has little to do with the average temperature over the 394 sq miles. Your reading pegs out at the population gradient, rendering the reading useless.

Building an average of thermometers doesn't help, since such an average, of say, 5 thermometers adjacent to each other also multiples the variance. The end numbers are the same.

If you take the variance and run it through the calculations to produce the confidence value of your summary, you will come up with a number of less than 1%.

This is just a mathematical way of shrugging your shoulders and saying, "who knows?".

The statistical summary is a probability. The confidence value is a measure of that probability to a normalized scale of accuracy.

Like any probability, the summary only tells you what MIGHT happen (if you have a good confidence value, say at least 75%). It does not tell you what WILL happen. Statistics cannot fortel the future any more than knowing the odds of a gambling game will tell you the outcome of any particular game or game session.

Wake wrote:
2. Use of words such as "driven" and "forcing" are just more of the True Believer fraud.

Quite right. The instant one sees these words applied to climate, weather, or atmosphere, big red lights should go off.
Wake wrote:
3. Of course there isn't. That doesn't mean we can't make reasonable approximations.

Yes it does. See above for my very short explanation of statistics.
Wake wrote:
But treating approximations as some sort of accurate measurements is again a fraud.

These aren't even approximations. They are pure random numbers (of the type randU, the 'predictable' random number). It's the same kind of number when you hear the argument that <insert large number here> of scientists agree on global warming. Other arguments from randU may use the the generic terms of 'none' or 'everyone', or similar descriptions of a value.
Wake wrote:
This has been committed by agencies of the government using American taxpayer dollars and they must be prosecuted.

Heh. If you want to do that, there is a LONG history to catch up on! I'll be satisfied if we can remove the status of state religion for the Church of Global Warming. The Church of Karl Marx must be fought continually, if you value the idea of a republic, or of the ideals of our various constitutions including the U.S. Constitution at all.
Wake wrote:
4. This is the problem. People like spot and greenman and the others do not know or understand science.

They also do not understand mathematics, logic, philosophy, or history. They do not understand the instrumentation and what it is and is not capable of.
Wake wrote:
They read some True Believer website (Many of them do not even allow any postings questioning AGW in any way) and then go on and on about how the Earth is going to die despite that no amount of science fact can penetrate their skulls.

This is related to my previous argument of not understanding logic. Since they depend on such Holy Links as their argument, they have lost ability to critically judge an argument. They have literally lost the ability to think for themselves. Practically everything they say comes from one of these sites almost word for word. All they do is paraphrase it slightly.
Wake wrote:
Let's just agree that they have more than enough ignorance to go around the entire religious community they belong to.

I can accept that as a fact between us. I believe we already have been using this fact as such in our conversations.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 01:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.
2) Climate isn't 'driven'. Climate is just weather over a long time. There is no 'global' weather.
3) It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
4) Your chicken entrails do not predict the future.

There is no problem. There never was.


1. While you are correct that there is no global climate it is still possible to calculate a mean global temperature. That can stand-in for describing a global climate.

No, it is not. We have nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis of any meaning.


You don't understand how MGT is measured and so you come up with this rediculous thermometer ploy. Big surprise.
16-08-2017 02:21
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.
2) Climate isn't 'driven'. Climate is just weather over a long time. There is no 'global' weather.
3) It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
4) Your chicken entrails do not predict the future.

There is no problem. There never was.


1. While you are correct that there is no global climate it is still possible to calculate a mean global temperature. That can stand-in for describing a global climate.

No, it is not. We have nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis of any meaning.


You don't understand how MGT is measured and so you come up with this rediculous thermometer ploy. Big surprise.


Hang on a minute Wake, I'm doing some checking. I had my doubts too but there is at least some credibility. Give me a few hours I'll put up something tonight that may surprise you. I always blew it off too because ITN says 20F has been observed over 1 mile...true, but that don't happen often enough to change the average...I might be wrong... got to finish working and go home and do some digging....


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
16-08-2017 02:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.
2) Climate isn't 'driven'. Climate is just weather over a long time. There is no 'global' weather.
3) It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
4) Your chicken entrails do not predict the future.

There is no problem. There never was.


1. While you are correct that there is no global climate it is still possible to calculate a mean global temperature. That can stand-in for describing a global climate.

No, it is not. We have nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis of any meaning.


You don't understand how MGT is measured and so you come up with this rediculous thermometer ploy. Big surprise.


Hang on a minute Wake, I'm doing some checking. I had my doubts too but there is at least some credibility. Give me a few hours I'll put up something tonight that may surprise you. I always blew it off too because ITN says 20F has been observed over 1 mile...true, but that don't happen often enough to change the average...I might be wrong... got to finish working and go home and do some digging....


I won't be surprised - the entire global warming is based upon thermometer data. And since the majority of those thermometers are in what started as fairly open country and became heavily urban areas over the years they have had what is known as a "Urban Heat Island Effect" that CANNOT be corrected for.

The Japanese kept very careful records and in those records is recordings of each city and town in Japan. On them you can plainly see some small heating that is magnified at each step in city size.

But that isn't the way MGT is measured now. Now you use the radiation from the entire planet as measure via satellite measurements.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/landsat/news/tirs-arrives.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

These methods are far from perfect but it gives us a good starting point.

As dumbass nightmare says - they are not designed for very high accuracy but they are good enough.
16-08-2017 05:43
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
So we've all heard ITN say "there is no way to accurately determine the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy". Drives me crazy just like the rest of you. But hold on a minute. He may be more right than wrong, or flat out right.

I took samples of RAW data from all over Central Michigan. The longest distance between reporting stations is ~120 miles and the shortest is less than 25 miles. These are mean temps with a fairly solid data set that is reasonably trusted and verified, dating back 1900 and before.

Let me be clear. I am not trying to show warming or cooling. What I find interesting is the relatively short distance between the reporting stations and the wide range of results. However, I did pick Michigan so that Greengroin could see what is actually happening in his own backyard. That way he won't need to run for shelter when he reads on the interweb that it's hotternhell and we're all doomed.

Is ITN right that we actually do need 7.8 million thermometers across the globe, all with readings taken at the exact same time every day to measure the global temp accurately? I'll say plausible.

I will also note that I have not looked into thermometer location on each site. However, the graph showing the most warming is the Kalamazoo hospital, right in the heart of a concrete city, showing Wake is right about heat island.

Not hiding anything, here's a link to the site used...it's been linked on this forum before. The PDF is attached below, could't get it in JPEG big enough to see...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Attached file:
gb2.pdf
Edited on 16-08-2017 06:15
16-08-2017 06:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.
2) Climate isn't 'driven'. Climate is just weather over a long time. There is no 'global' weather.
3) It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
4) Your chicken entrails do not predict the future.

There is no problem. There never was.


1. While you are correct that there is no global climate it is still possible to calculate a mean global temperature. That can stand-in for describing a global climate.

No, it is not. We have nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis of any meaning.


You don't understand how MGT is measured and so you come up with this rediculous thermometer ploy. Big surprise.


Mean Global Temperature is not measured. See my brief description of statistical math.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 06:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.
2) Climate isn't 'driven'. Climate is just weather over a long time. There is no 'global' weather.
3) It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
4) Your chicken entrails do not predict the future.

There is no problem. There never was.


1. While you are correct that there is no global climate it is still possible to calculate a mean global temperature. That can stand-in for describing a global climate.

No, it is not. We have nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis of any meaning.


You don't understand how MGT is measured and so you come up with this rediculous thermometer ploy. Big surprise.


Hang on a minute Wake, I'm doing some checking. I had my doubts too but there is at least some credibility. Give me a few hours I'll put up something tonight that may surprise you. I always blew it off too because ITN says 20F has been observed over 1 mile...true, but that don't happen often enough to change the average...I might be wrong... got to finish working and go home and do some digging....


It doesn't change the average. It changes the confidence and the margin of error.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 06:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
1) There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.
2) Climate isn't 'driven'. Climate is just weather over a long time. There is no 'global' weather.
3) It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to this accuracy.
4) Your chicken entrails do not predict the future.

There is no problem. There never was.


1. While you are correct that there is no global climate it is still possible to calculate a mean global temperature. That can stand-in for describing a global climate.

No, it is not. We have nowhere near enough thermometers to even begin a statistical analysis of any meaning.


You don't understand how MGT is measured and so you come up with this rediculous thermometer ploy. Big surprise.


Hang on a minute Wake, I'm doing some checking. I had my doubts too but there is at least some credibility. Give me a few hours I'll put up something tonight that may surprise you. I always blew it off too because ITN says 20F has been observed over 1 mile...true, but that don't happen often enough to change the average...I might be wrong... got to finish working and go home and do some digging....


I won't be surprised - the entire global warming is based upon thermometer data.

No, it's based on an argument from randU. No one even knows how many thermometers there are in the world, not even official ones.
Wake wrote:
And since the majority of those thermometers are in what started as fairly open country and became heavily urban areas over the years they have had what is known as a "Urban Heat Island Effect" that CANNOT be corrected for.

Actually, most NOAA stations are NOT in cities. As for other nations, it varies.
Wake wrote:
The Japanese kept very careful records and in those records is recordings of each city and town in Japan. On them you can plainly see some small heating that is magnified at each step in city size.

For a thermometer in a city, that would not be surprising.
Wake wrote:
But that isn't the way MGT is measured now. Now you use the radiation from the entire planet as measure via satellite measurements.
...deleted Holy Links...

Not possible. Satellites can't determine absolute temperatures. No one knows the emissivity of the Earth. These satellites are barely able to compare relative temperatures. They are useful for weather monitoring or ocean current monitoring, that's about it.
Wake wrote:
These methods are far from perfect but it gives us a good starting point.

It gives no starting point at all. Satellites are not capable of measuring an absolute temperature.
Wake wrote:
As dumbass nightmare says - they are not designed for very high accuracy but they are good enough.


They are designed for high accuracy for what they do. Measuring absolute temperature is not what they do.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 06:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
GasGuzzler wrote:
So we've all heard ITN say "there is no way to accurately determine the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy". Drives me crazy just like the rest of you. But hold on a minute. He may be more right than wrong, or flat out right.

I took samples of RAW data from all over Central Michigan. The longest distance between reporting stations is ~120 miles and the shortest is less than 25 miles. These are mean temps with a fairly solid data set that is reasonably trusted and verified, dating back 1900 and before.

Let me be clear. I am not trying to show warming or cooling. What I find interesting is the relatively short distance between the reporting stations and the wide range of results. However, I did pick Michigan so that Greengroin could see what is actually happening in his own backyard. That way he won't need to run for shelter when he reads on the interweb that it's hotternhell and we're all doomed.

Is ITN right that we actually do need 7.8 million thermometers across the globe, all with readings taken at the exact same time every day to measure the global temp accurately? I'll say plausible.

I will also note that I have not looked into thermometer location on each site. However, the graph showing the most warming is the Kalamazoo hospital, right in the heart of a concrete city, showing Wake is right about heat island.

Not hiding anything, here's a link to the site used...it's been linked on this forum before. The PDF is attached below, could't get it in JPEG big enough to see...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html


Ya done yer homework dude. Good job!


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 17:30
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So we've all heard ITN say "there is no way to accurately determine the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy". Drives me crazy just like the rest of you. But hold on a minute. He may be more right than wrong, or flat out right.

I took samples of RAW data from all over Central Michigan. The longest distance between reporting stations is ~120 miles and the shortest is less than 25 miles. These are mean temps with a fairly solid data set that is reasonably trusted and verified, dating back 1900 and before.

Let me be clear. I am not trying to show warming or cooling. What I find interesting is the relatively short distance between the reporting stations and the wide range of results. However, I did pick Michigan so that Greengroin could see what is actually happening in his own backyard. That way he won't need to run for shelter when he reads on the interweb that it's hotternhell and we're all doomed.

Is ITN right that we actually do need 7.8 million thermometers across the globe, all with readings taken at the exact same time every day to measure the global temp accurately? I'll say plausible.

I will also note that I have not looked into thermometer location on each site. However, the graph showing the most warming is the Kalamazoo hospital, right in the heart of a concrete city, showing Wake is right about heat island.

Not hiding anything, here's a link to the site used...it's been linked on this forum before. The PDF is attached below, could't get it in JPEG big enough to see...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html


Ya done yer homework dude. Good job!


Considering that temperatures are taken basically everywhere, think you 2 are missing something. ITN has already falsified science. He has proven Newton's Law of Gravity is wrong. He needs for people to go by what he says. I find him scary in that he does not discuss anything. And yet if you don't know something then how can you discuss it ?
16-08-2017 17:35
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
How do you explain the large variability in such a small area? Did you look at the plots from the 9 stations? And this was simply random. Try another location, see if you get the same.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Attached image:

16-08-2017 17:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote: Considering that temperatures are taken basically everywhere, think you 2 are missing something. ITN has already falsified science. He has proven Newton's Law of Gravity is wrong. He needs for people to go by what he says. I find him scary in that he does not discuss anything. And yet if you don't know something then how can you discuss it ?


You're right that he doesn't discuss anything. He makes proclamations almost all of which are not just wrong but insane.
16-08-2017 17:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
How do you explain the large variability in such a small area? Did you look at the plots from the 9 stations? And this was simply random. Try another location, see if you get the same.


You are assuming that you are observing a large variability. In fact you aren't. Mean Global Temperature is supposed to average all of that out. You know that the temperature in a countryside is different from the temperature at the end of an airport runway. Even in a city the upwind side of the city is going to have lower temperatures than the downwind side on a sunny day.

But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.
16-08-2017 17:59
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.


True. But when the warmies wave a new chart, it's typically the ground based reporting station averages with the big jump in temps. To me it shows 2 things.

1. Not necessarily manufactured data, but maybe more "selective" data is used.

2. Possibly we don't know the average temp of the earth. In those 9 charts, I can't even find a trend spanning 100+ years and ~100 mile separation. Satellite data I believe will show accurate trends.... but accurate temps? I'm not convinced. Besides that, some clown is always making an "adjustment" in favor of warming.

Oh, and there is a 3rd.

3. It shows that Greenhorn doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
16-08-2017 18:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.


True. But when the warmies wave a new chart, it's typically the ground based reporting station averages with the big jump in temps. To me it shows 2 things.

1. Not necessarily manufactured data, but maybe more "selective" data is used.

2. Possibly we don't know the average temp of the earth. In those 9 charts, I can't even find a trend spanning 100+ years and ~100 mile separation. Satellite data I believe will show accurate trends.... but accurate temps? I'm not convinced. Besides that, some clown is always making an "adjustment" in favor of warming.

Oh, and there is a 3rd.

3. It shows that Greenhorn doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard.


Well Nightmare is continuously harping on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation but then turns around and says that you can't measure the temperatures via the frequency (color) of the Infrared radiation.

But in fact that is exactly what you do. The resolution of the cameras are the only limiting factor and since they have telescopic lenses (actually reflectors) they have extremely fine resolution of the IR.

So Dr. Spencer's graphs can be relied upon to be accurate.
16-08-2017 18:15
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.


True. But when the warmies wave a new chart, it's typically the ground based reporting station averages with the big jump in temps. To me it shows 2 things.

1. Not necessarily manufactured data, but maybe more "selective" data is used.

2. Possibly we don't know the average temp of the earth. In those 9 charts, I can't even find a trend spanning 100+ years and ~100 mile separation. Satellite data I believe will show accurate trends.... but accurate temps? I'm not convinced. Besides that, some clown is always making an "adjustment" in favor of warming.

Oh, and there is a 3rd.

3. It shows that Greenhorn doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard.


Well Nightmare is continuously harping on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation but then turns around and says that you can't measure the temperatures via the frequency (color) of the Infrared radiation.

But in fact that is exactly what you do. The resolution of the cameras are the only limiting factor and since they have telescopic lenses (actually reflectors) they have extremely fine resolution of the IR.

So Dr. Spencer's graphs can be relied upon to be accurate.


What about "dirty" orbit issues? Not arguing, my knowledge is little. Is the orbit an issue? Are they initially tight and then get sloppy? How much slop until it affects accuracy?


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
16-08-2017 18:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.


True. But when the warmies wave a new chart, it's typically the ground based reporting station averages with the big jump in temps. To me it shows 2 things.

1. Not necessarily manufactured data, but maybe more "selective" data is used.

2. Possibly we don't know the average temp of the earth. In those 9 charts, I can't even find a trend spanning 100+ years and ~100 mile separation. Satellite data I believe will show accurate trends.... but accurate temps? I'm not convinced. Besides that, some clown is always making an "adjustment" in favor of warming.

Oh, and there is a 3rd.

3. It shows that Greenhorn doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard.


Well Nightmare is continuously harping on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation but then turns around and says that you can't measure the temperatures via the frequency (color) of the Infrared radiation.

But in fact that is exactly what you do. The resolution of the cameras are the only limiting factor and since they have telescopic lenses (actually reflectors) they have extremely fine resolution of the IR.

So Dr. Spencer's graphs can be relied upon to be accurate.


What about "dirty" orbit issues? Not arguing, my knowledge is little. Is the orbit an issue? Are they initially tight and then get sloppy? How much slop until it affects accuracy?


These satellites orbit at something like 22,000 miles. Despite the attempted lies of the left, trigonometric analysis shows that even pretty sizable orbital deviations would have almost no effect on the measurements.
16-08-2017 20:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
So we've all heard ITN say "there is no way to accurately determine the global temperature to any useful degree of accuracy". Drives me crazy just like the rest of you. But hold on a minute. He may be more right than wrong, or flat out right.

I took samples of RAW data from all over Central Michigan. The longest distance between reporting stations is ~120 miles and the shortest is less than 25 miles. These are mean temps with a fairly solid data set that is reasonably trusted and verified, dating back 1900 and before.

Let me be clear. I am not trying to show warming or cooling. What I find interesting is the relatively short distance between the reporting stations and the wide range of results. However, I did pick Michigan so that Greengroin could see what is actually happening in his own backyard. That way he won't need to run for shelter when he reads on the interweb that it's hotternhell and we're all doomed.

Is ITN right that we actually do need 7.8 million thermometers across the globe, all with readings taken at the exact same time every day to measure the global temp accurately? I'll say plausible.

I will also note that I have not looked into thermometer location on each site. However, the graph showing the most warming is the Kalamazoo hospital, right in the heart of a concrete city, showing Wake is right about heat island.

Not hiding anything, here's a link to the site used...it's been linked on this forum before. The PDF is attached below, could't get it in JPEG big enough to see...

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html


Ya done yer homework dude. Good job!


Considering that temperatures are taken basically everywhere, think you 2 are missing something.

They aren't. That is the point.
James_ wrote:
ITN has already falsified science. He has proven Newton's Law of Gravity is wrong.

??? Now you're just making bizarre statements.
James_ wrote:
He needs for people to go by what he says. I find him scary in that he does not discuss anything.

I scare you??? You really ARE paranoid. I expect people to do their own research if they have doubts about my arguments. Looks like you are too lazy to and would rather take a paranoid stance.
James_ wrote:
And yet if you don't know something then how can you discuss it ?

Do yer homework dude.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 20:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: Considering that temperatures are taken basically everywhere, think you 2 are missing something. ITN has already falsified science. He has proven Newton's Law of Gravity is wrong. He needs for people to go by what he says. I find him scary in that he does not discuss anything. And yet if you don't know something then how can you discuss it ?


You're right that he doesn't discuss anything. He makes proclamations almost all of which are not just wrong but insane.


You too, eh? Maybe you should have at least looked at Gas Guzzler's post that immediately preceded your dumb comment.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
How do you explain the large variability in such a small area? Did you look at the plots from the 9 stations? And this was simply random. Try another location, see if you get the same.


You are assuming that you are observing a large variability. In fact you aren't. Mean Global Temperature is supposed to average all of that out.

Math error. Selection by opportunity. This is caused by a self referential adjustment using a result from a statistical analysis that has been run yet.

In other words, you are making a circular argument and failing to recognize it. That's a fallacy.
Wake wrote:
You know that the temperature in a countryside is different from the temperature at the end of an airport runway.

1) Weather stations are not typically located at airport. Only airport condition weather is usually reported at one if any weather is reported at all. Most of those stations are robots broadcasting on a radio. These stations, if they exist, are usually located near the center of the field, never at the end of a runway. It would interfere with approach instrumentation.
2) Airports are usually located in the countryside. Aircraft need clear approach and takeoff paths. They can make a lot of noise. Few people want to live near one.
3) A major airport is a chunk of land that contains several runways some 2 miles on a side. There is nothing but grass over the bulk of the property. There are no houses, few buildings, no trees, and narrow strips of asphalt or concrete. The airport itself is effectively countryside.
Wake wrote:
Even in a city the upwind side of the city is going to have lower temperatures than the downwind side on a sunny day.

You're guessing again. You don't know what's on the upwind side.

I hope you go see the eclipse in a totality zone. Then you will see just how fast the temperature drops (typically 10-12 deg F) as the Sun is covered by the Moon for two minutes.

No amount of 'greenhouse' gas is going to stop it. No heat island effect is going to keep it from happen9ing.

Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.

Satellites are not able to read absolute temperature. No one knows the emissivity of Earth. You really should learn more about the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 21:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:

1) Weather stations are not typically located at airport. Only airport condition weather is usually reported at one if any weather is reported at all. Most of those stations are robots broadcasting on a radio. These stations, if they exist, are usually located near the center of the field, never at the end of a runway. It would interfere with approach instrumentation.
2) Airports are usually located in the countryside. Aircraft need clear approach and takeoff paths. They can make a lot of noise. Few people want to live near one.
3) A major airport is a chunk of land that contains several runways some 2 miles on a side. There is nothing but grass over the bulk of the property. There are no houses, few buildings, no trees, and narrow strips of asphalt or concrete. The airport itself is effectively countryside.
Wake wrote:
Even in a city the upwind side of the city is going to have lower temperatures than the downwind side on a sunny day.

You're guessing again. You don't know what's on the upwind side.

I hope you go see the eclipse in a totality zone. Then you will see just how fast the temperature drops (typically 10-12 deg F) as the Sun is covered by the Moon for two minutes.

No amount of 'greenhouse' gas is going to stop it. No heat island effect is going to keep it from happen9ing.

Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.

Satellites are not able to read absolute temperature. No one knows the emissivity of Earth. You really should learn more about the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Gee, you must have all the answers - I always wondered why the majority of weather reporting systems were owned and operated by the FAA. One would never for a second suspect that wind velocity, direction and temperature would be important for an aircraft.

Your stupid ideas that because an airport isn't in a downtown area that Urban Heat Island effects aren't measurable shows again that you haven't a clue and simply shoot off your mouth to hear the noise.

Anyone capable of using the Internet properly would have been able to find scientific papers about the difference in temperatures on the upwind and down in urban centers. But I'm guessing and you haven't a clue what's going on.
16-08-2017 21:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.


True. But when the warmies wave a new chart, it's typically the ground based reporting station averages with the big jump in temps. To me it shows 2 things.

1. Not necessarily manufactured data, but maybe more "selective" data is used.

2. Possibly we don't know the average temp of the earth. In those 9 charts, I can't even find a trend spanning 100+ years and ~100 mile separation. Satellite data I believe will show accurate trends.... but accurate temps? I'm not convinced. Besides that, some clown is always making an "adjustment" in favor of warming.

Oh, and there is a 3rd.

3. It shows that Greenhorn doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard.


These charts are individual station logs kept by these stations that are shown (all NOAA operated stations do this). Their indications are for the temperatures at the bulb of the thermometer only. Raw data IS available from the individual logs.

NOAA operated stations cover the lower 48 States of the United States. They do not cover the world in any way. They don't even cover Alaska or Hawaii. Those stations are privately owned, haven't existed very long in one place, and do not have anywhere near as extensive a log.

European stations in particular have VERY short logs. This is because they were destroyed during WWII as it rampaged across Europe (not just the stations, but their logs as well).

Russia maintains a bunch of stations, but they always cook their data. When the USSR ran out of money to steal, they closed almost all of the harder to service stations (the ones in the coldest part of Russia). The average between all stations of Russia went up artificially as a result. Trying to use these to declare a nationwide temperature is still the same error in statistics that Wake and James like to do, but this was reported as the 'average temperature of Russia'.

There are very few stations in places that are war torn, like the Mideast. The few that do exist have a very spotty record on hand.

Most of Africa is simply too remote to bother with weather stations at all. In large parts of that continent, there simply aren't any. The same is true for places like the remote areas of China, Antarctica, Canada, etc.

Oceanic buoys are placed, but there are still very large areas where no monitoring is available at all in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

Satellites can only measure light. To get any idea of temperature they have to use an assumed value of emissivity. No one knows the emissivity of Earth or any part of it (it constantly changes with the weather). The best the satellites can do is measure a relative temperature (one place is warmer or colder than another) using these assumptions. They cannot measure absolute temperature. These devices are best used to monitor ocean currents, weather, ship traffic (by using their heat wakes left in the water), and similar purposes. This only works for the area the satellite happens to be focused on at any particular time.

No one knows how many 'official' thermometers are in the world. We DO know they are not uniformly spaced. We also know they are not read at the same time. The affects of time and location and grouping will affect any statistical analysis.

The surface area of the world is 197 million sq miles. This does not count anything above or below the surface such as temperatures of the atmosphere or the ocean depths.

The practical upshot means we have no idea what the temperature of the Earth is. We never did.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.


True. But when the warmies wave a new chart, it's typically the ground based reporting station averages with the big jump in temps. To me it shows 2 things.

1. Not necessarily manufactured data, but maybe more "selective" data is used.

2. Possibly we don't know the average temp of the earth. In those 9 charts, I can't even find a trend spanning 100+ years and ~100 mile separation. Satellite data I believe will show accurate trends.... but accurate temps? I'm not convinced. Besides that, some clown is always making an "adjustment" in favor of warming.

Oh, and there is a 3rd.

3. It shows that Greenhorn doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard.


Well Nightmare is continuously harping on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation

Because apparently you don't understand it or its limitations.
Wake wrote:
but then turns around and says that you can't measure the temperatures via the frequency (color) of the Infrared radiation.

You can't. The best you can do with this technique is to estimate by using comparisons, and that only works with an energy source, like a star or the Sun. We do not know the temperatures of these bodies, but we can compare them to known glowing bodies to get a rough estimate. The technique does not work on reflective bodies, like the Earth.
Wake wrote:
But in fact that is exactly what you do. The resolution of the cameras are the only limiting factor and since they have telescopic lenses (actually reflectors) they have extremely fine resolution of the IR.

This is NOT what you do. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth this way.

High resolution cameras do not mean high resolution in discriminating frequencies of IR. It simply means you are able to focus on a smaller spot, which means you see less of the Earth, not more.

Fine discriminators are also used in satellites, but that won't help you either, since using Wien's law doesn't work with reflective bodies such as the Earth.

Wake wrote:
So Dr. Spencer's graphs can be relied upon to be accurate.

No, they can't. He is not only making a math error in statistics, he is gathering the data using different kinds of instruments calibrated in different ways. He is also assuming a fixed emissivity of Earth, which no one knows.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 21:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.


True. But when the warmies wave a new chart, it's typically the ground based reporting station averages with the big jump in temps. To me it shows 2 things.

1. Not necessarily manufactured data, but maybe more "selective" data is used.

2. Possibly we don't know the average temp of the earth. In those 9 charts, I can't even find a trend spanning 100+ years and ~100 mile separation. Satellite data I believe will show accurate trends.... but accurate temps? I'm not convinced. Besides that, some clown is always making an "adjustment" in favor of warming.

Oh, and there is a 3rd.

3. It shows that Greenhorn doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard.


Well Nightmare is continuously harping on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation

Because apparently you don't understand it or its limitations.
Wake wrote:
but then turns around and says that you can't measure the temperatures via the frequency (color) of the Infrared radiation.

You can't. The best you can do with this technique is to estimate by using comparisons, and that only works with an energy source, like a star or the Sun. We do not know the temperatures of these bodies, but we can compare them to known glowing bodies to get a rough estimate. The technique does not work on reflective bodies, like the Earth.
Wake wrote:
But in fact that is exactly what you do. The resolution of the cameras are the only limiting factor and since they have telescopic lenses (actually reflectors) they have extremely fine resolution of the IR.

This is NOT what you do. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth this way.

High resolution cameras do not mean high resolution in discriminating frequencies of IR. It simply means you are able to focus on a smaller spot, which means you see less of the Earth, not more.

Fine discriminators are also used in satellites, but that won't help you either, since using Wien's law doesn't work with reflective bodies such as the Earth.

Wake wrote:
So Dr. Spencer's graphs can be relied upon to be accurate.

No, they can't. He is not only making a math error in statistics, he is gathering the data using different kinds of instruments calibrated in different ways. He is also assuming a fixed emissivity of Earth, which no one knows.


As usual you make your campaign promises just like Hillary. If you don't understand anything why are you talking about it?

Why don't you tell us that everything is explained by the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and then deny it immediately?
16-08-2017 21:57
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
ITN Wrote;
I hope you go see the eclipse in a totality zone. Then you will see just how fast the temperature drops (typically 10-12 deg F) as the Sun is covered by the Moon for two minutes.

No amount of 'greenhouse' gas is going to stop it. No heat island effect is going to keep it from happen9ing.


This will be highly dependent on dew point temperatures.
16-08-2017 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.


True. But when the warmies wave a new chart, it's typically the ground based reporting station averages with the big jump in temps. To me it shows 2 things.

1. Not necessarily manufactured data, but maybe more "selective" data is used.

2. Possibly we don't know the average temp of the earth. In those 9 charts, I can't even find a trend spanning 100+ years and ~100 mile separation. Satellite data I believe will show accurate trends.... but accurate temps? I'm not convinced. Besides that, some clown is always making an "adjustment" in favor of warming.

Oh, and there is a 3rd.

3. It shows that Greenhorn doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard.


Well Nightmare is continuously harping on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation but then turns around and says that you can't measure the temperatures via the frequency (color) of the Infrared radiation.

But in fact that is exactly what you do. The resolution of the cameras are the only limiting factor and since they have telescopic lenses (actually reflectors) they have extremely fine resolution of the IR.

So Dr. Spencer's graphs can be relied upon to be accurate.


What about "dirty" orbit issues? Not arguing, my knowledge is little. Is the orbit an issue? Are they initially tight and then get sloppy? How much slop until it affects accuracy?


The orbits of satellites DOES change, due to variations in Earth's gravity (yes...it varies as you fly over mountains, seas, liquid magma moving around, etc. It also changes due to atmospheric drag (our atmosphere has no upper 'top'. It just thins out to nothing. That almost nothing is still greater than zero, and it varies.), solar drag (stars change, and the solar wind they put out changes too.), and tidal drag (the Moon acts on a satellite just like the tides in oceans).

For satellites designed to measure relative temperatures, it doesn't make too much difference. They tend to just scan what is below them at the moment, and it's geographic position is easily determined from those images. Altitude is not that important a factor.

Orbital speed and accurately determined altitude is more important for navigation satellites. Brilliantly designed, these devices are only as accurate as their reference point (typically a ground station sitting on a moving continent) and their ability to compare against that reference point despite the changing orbits all satellites suffer from.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 22:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.


True. But when the warmies wave a new chart, it's typically the ground based reporting station averages with the big jump in temps. To me it shows 2 things.

1. Not necessarily manufactured data, but maybe more "selective" data is used.

2. Possibly we don't know the average temp of the earth. In those 9 charts, I can't even find a trend spanning 100+ years and ~100 mile separation. Satellite data I believe will show accurate trends.... but accurate temps? I'm not convinced. Besides that, some clown is always making an "adjustment" in favor of warming.

Oh, and there is a 3rd.

3. It shows that Greenhorn doesn't know what's going on in his own backyard.


Well Nightmare is continuously harping on the Stefan-Boltzmann equation but then turns around and says that you can't measure the temperatures via the frequency (color) of the Infrared radiation.

But in fact that is exactly what you do. The resolution of the cameras are the only limiting factor and since they have telescopic lenses (actually reflectors) they have extremely fine resolution of the IR.

So Dr. Spencer's graphs can be relied upon to be accurate.


What about "dirty" orbit issues? Not arguing, my knowledge is little. Is the orbit an issue? Are they initially tight and then get sloppy? How much slop until it affects accuracy?


These satellites orbit at something like 22,000 miles. Despite the attempted lies of the left, trigonometric analysis shows that even pretty sizable orbital deviations would have almost no effect on the measurements.


Don't need trigonometry. All you need is the image of the current scan.

You are correct that orbital variations aren't really a factor in their measurements.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 22:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN Wrote;
I hope you go see the eclipse in a totality zone. Then you will see just how fast the temperature drops (typically 10-12 deg F) as the Sun is covered by the Moon for two minutes.

No amount of 'greenhouse' gas is going to stop it. No heat island effect is going to keep it from happen9ing.


This will be highly dependent on dew point temperatures.


You're supposed to be shocked that when you turn the heat off on the stove the pan cools down.
16-08-2017 22:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: Don't need trigonometry. All you need is the image of the current scan.

You are correct that orbital variations aren't really a factor in their measurements.


No one expects you to have the slightest idea what is being discussed so we're not surprised when you don't.
16-08-2017 22:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

1) Weather stations are not typically located at airport. Only airport condition weather is usually reported at one if any weather is reported at all. Most of those stations are robots broadcasting on a radio. These stations, if they exist, are usually located near the center of the field, never at the end of a runway. It would interfere with approach instrumentation.
2) Airports are usually located in the countryside. Aircraft need clear approach and takeoff paths. They can make a lot of noise. Few people want to live near one.
3) A major airport is a chunk of land that contains several runways some 2 miles on a side. There is nothing but grass over the bulk of the property. There are no houses, few buildings, no trees, and narrow strips of asphalt or concrete. The airport itself is effectively countryside.
Wake wrote:
Even in a city the upwind side of the city is going to have lower temperatures than the downwind side on a sunny day.

You're guessing again. You don't know what's on the upwind side.

I hope you go see the eclipse in a totality zone. Then you will see just how fast the temperature drops (typically 10-12 deg F) as the Sun is covered by the Moon for two minutes.

No amount of 'greenhouse' gas is going to stop it. No heat island effect is going to keep it from happen9ing.

Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.

Satellites are not able to read absolute temperature. No one knows the emissivity of Earth. You really should learn more about the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Gee, you must have all the answers

I have the answers I need.
Wake wrote:
- I always wondered why the majority of weather reporting systems were owned and operated by the FAA.

They aren't. The majority of weather reporting systems are privately owned. So are the majority of thermometers.

Airport weather monitoring equipment is not owned by the FAA. It is owned by the owner of the airport, typically a city government, county government, or even an individual.
Wake wrote:
One would never for a second suspect that wind velocity, direction and temperature would be important for an aircraft.

Velocity and direction of wind is as simple as a windsock. Several airports also use robots to broadcast this information (ASOS) or even have an operator read the instrument and include it in their briefing to approaching pilots (ATIS). Many airports have nothing more than a windsock. Some don't even have that. You gauge your wind by how the runway looks during approach.

Temperature is not that important to aircraft unless it gets very hot or very cold. Most pilots are already aware of such conditions. Robots typically broadcast the temperature and dewpoint so you can predict any obscuring fog forming. soon.

You actually do not need a weather station on the airport at all. Not even a windsock. It's possible to fly and safely land at an airport with nothing for weather reporting at all.

Wake wrote:
Your stupid ideas that because an airport isn't in a downtown area that Urban Heat Island effects aren't measurable shows again that you haven't a clue and simply shoot off your mouth to hear the noise.

Do I have to bring up pictures of airports again? IBDaMann already did this for you once. Did you forget already?
Wake wrote:
Anyone capable of using the Internet properly would have been able to find scientific papers about the difference in temperatures on the upwind and down in urban centers.

Science isn't papers. The internet isn't the Oracle of Truth.
Wake wrote:
But I'm guessing and you haven't a clue what's going on.

It's obvious you don't. You are blatantly ignoring the truth about aviation, airport weather systems, and the NOAA network.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 22:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN Wrote;
I hope you go see the eclipse in a totality zone. Then you will see just how fast the temperature drops (typically 10-12 deg F) as the Sun is covered by the Moon for two minutes.

No amount of 'greenhouse' gas is going to stop it. No heat island effect is going to keep it from happen9ing.


This will be highly dependent on dew point temperatures.


If you going to see the eclipse, you are probably going to try to find an area of clear skies. That means the spread between the temperature and the diewpoint are going to be significant. It won't be a factor.

Similar temperature drops and their rate are the same no matter what the humidity is. Eclipses have been observed in both humid and arid regions, this has already been observed.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 22:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN Wrote;
I hope you go see the eclipse in a totality zone. Then you will see just how fast the temperature drops (typically 10-12 deg F) as the Sun is covered by the Moon for two minutes.

No amount of 'greenhouse' gas is going to stop it. No heat island effect is going to keep it from happen9ing.


This will be highly dependent on dew point temperatures.


You're supposed to be shocked that when you turn the heat off on the stove the pan cools down.


Go stuff your Bulverism elsewhere, dumbass. Contextomies are not the way to go through life.

Getting back to the point, 'greenhouse' effect is not going to keep this from happening. It is a great way to show how little 'greenhouse' gases affect anything, including water vapor.


The Parrot Killer
16-08-2017 22:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

1) Weather stations are not typically located at airport. Only airport condition weather is usually reported at one if any weather is reported at all. Most of those stations are robots broadcasting on a radio. These stations, if they exist, are usually located near the center of the field, never at the end of a runway. It would interfere with approach instrumentation.
2) Airports are usually located in the countryside. Aircraft need clear approach and takeoff paths. They can make a lot of noise. Few people want to live near one.
3) A major airport is a chunk of land that contains several runways some 2 miles on a side. There is nothing but grass over the bulk of the property. There are no houses, few buildings, no trees, and narrow strips of asphalt or concrete. The airport itself is effectively countryside.
Wake wrote:
Even in a city the upwind side of the city is going to have lower temperatures than the downwind side on a sunny day.

You're guessing again. You don't know what's on the upwind side.

I hope you go see the eclipse in a totality zone. Then you will see just how fast the temperature drops (typically 10-12 deg F) as the Sun is covered by the Moon for two minutes.

No amount of 'greenhouse' gas is going to stop it. No heat island effect is going to keep it from happen9ing.

Wake wrote:
But again - these aren't really pertinent since the the temperature is calculated from the level of energy leaving the earth as read by the infrared satellites.

Satellites are not able to read absolute temperature. No one knows the emissivity of Earth. You really should learn more about the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


Gee, you must have all the answers

I have the answers I need.
Wake wrote:
- I always wondered why the majority of weather reporting systems were owned and operated by the FAA.

They aren't. The majority of weather reporting systems are privately owned. So are the majority of thermometers.

Airport weather monitoring equipment is not owned by the FAA. It is owned by the owner of the airport, typically a city government, county government, or even an individual.
Wake wrote:
One would never for a second suspect that wind velocity, direction and temperature would be important for an aircraft.

Velocity and direction of wind is as simple as a windsock. Several airports also use robots to broadcast this information (ASOS) or even have an operator read the instrument and include it in their briefing to approaching pilots (ATIS). Many airports have nothing more than a windsock. Some don't even have that. You gauge your wind by how the runway looks during approach.

Temperature is not that important to aircraft unless it gets very hot or very cold. Most pilots are already aware of such conditions. Robots typically broadcast the temperature and dewpoint so you can predict any obscuring fog forming. soon.

You actually do not need a weather station on the airport at all. Not even a windsock. It's possible to fly and safely land at an airport with nothing for weather reporting at all.

Wake wrote:
Your stupid ideas that because an airport isn't in a downtown area that Urban Heat Island effects aren't measurable shows again that you haven't a clue and simply shoot off your mouth to hear the noise.

Do I have to bring up pictures of airports again? IBDaMann already did this for you once. Did you forget already?
Wake wrote:
Anyone capable of using the Internet properly would have been able to find scientific papers about the difference in temperatures on the upwind and down in urban centers.

Science isn't papers. The internet isn't the Oracle of Truth.
Wake wrote:
But I'm guessing and you haven't a clue what's going on.

It's obvious you don't. You are blatantly ignoring the truth about aviation, airport weather systems, and the NOAA network.


Man, you simply cannot stop yourself from showing everyone how little knowledge you have can you?

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/weather/asos/

Pick a state - any state moron. Even the ghost state of Wyoming has 32 FAA owned and operated weather stations.
16-08-2017 22:53
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1521)
ITN Wrote;
If you going to see the eclipse, you are probably going to try to find an area of clear skies. That means the spread between the temperature and the diewpoint are going to be significant. It won't be a factor.

Similar temperature drops and their rate are the same no matter what the humidity is.


I'd be willing to bet an Iowa corn fed 16 oz ribeye that you're wrong on this. No need to argue about it today, looks like we'll have a perfect opportunity to see the proof on Monday. I'll start looking for reporting stations in totality that update every 15 minutes.


spot-
Into the Night is also has delusions of comptance
Attached image:

16-08-2017 22:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN Wrote;
If you going to see the eclipse, you are probably going to try to find an area of clear skies. That means the spread between the temperature and the diewpoint are going to be significant. It won't be a factor.

Similar temperature drops and their rate are the same no matter what the humidity is.


I'd be willing to bet an Iowa corn fed 16 oz ribeye that you're wrong on this. No need to argue about it today, looks like we'll have a perfect opportunity to see the proof on Monday. I'll start looking for reporting stations in totality that update every 15 minutes.


It's like speaking to an idiot child. He says anything to make himself look smart. The most obvious BS flows out of his mouth.

He hasn't a ghost of an idea of why orbital changes in the weather IR satellite would make a difference in the monitored MGT and goes right ahead and tells us that it makes no difference.
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate They Still Say it's going to get Hotter:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?2309-12-2019 17:29
I don't believe CO2 makes air hotter because I don't see any experimental proof509-10-2019 03:15
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?47315-08-2019 05:20
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