Where are the numbers?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
..... Where's the proof? Where's the 100 annual average global temperatures from 1900 to 2000? Without numbers......

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
They say average global temperature increased 0.6C in the 20th century. Where's the proof?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Where's the 100 annual average global temperatures from 1900 to 2000? Without numbers, without proof, why should anyone believe their claim?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

I haven't used google earth in many years, but the satellite images were several years old. Definitely not a live view, or updated regularly. Maybe it's improved some since then.

still learning wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
..... Where's the proof? Where's the 100 annual average global temperatures from 1900 to 2000? Without numbers......

Proof....A word used by lawyers.

still learning wrote:
Seldom used by scientists or engineers.

still learning wrote:
Where is the evidence? That is a more reasonable question.

still learning wrote:
The actual original evidence would be in the millions of individual temperature records kept over the decades. Not the sort of thing easily looked over by an individual person.

still learning wrote:
The "100 annual average global temperatures" would be some sort of summary, not actual original evidence. Actually the literal "average global temperature" wouldn't be useful anyway since you'd be including the hot interior of the Earth. Mean global near-surface air temperature maybe? As reported in a standardized way?

still learning wrote:
Maybe read here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/abs_temp.html

still learning wrote:
Or here: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/

still learning wrote:
NOAA and NASA and UK Met Office all maintain datasets you can access.

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...

gfm7175 wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
They say average global temperature increased 0.6C in the 20th century. Where's the proof?

There is none. Science doesn't make use of proofs, and global warming isn't even science; it is a religion based on a circularly-defined buzzword.

We don't know how much the global temperature has increased, since there is no way to measure global temperature. How many thermometers would one use? Where would they be placed? How would they be spaced out? When would they be read?

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Where's the 100 annual average global temperatures from 1900 to 2000? Without numbers, without proof, why should anyone believe their claim?

Nowhere to be found, unless someone pulls some random numbers from their ass. Global temperature cannot be measured. Even the temperature of a particular US State cannot be measured, let alone the whole globe.

HarveyH55 wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

I haven't used google earth in many years, but the satellite images were several years old. Definitely not a live view, or updated regularly. Maybe it's improved some since then.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...

But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...

But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.

The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...

But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.

The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.

Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...

But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.

The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.

Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?

It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.

Into the Night wrote:
No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

Wake is way too angry of a person to have a sense of humor of any sort... he needs to resolve his anger issues first...

Wake wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

Wake is way too angry of a person to have a sense of humor of any sort... he needs to resolve his anger issues first...

I am not angry with anyone here save Nightmare who is delusional.

Wake wrote:
There isn't a single thing that he knows about science.

Wake wrote:
That would be fine save for the fact that he is always telling everyone else how they are uninformed but he is in the know.

Wake wrote:
Have you even been reading him?

Wake wrote:
Spectroscopy is a science almost two hundred years old and he is telling us that you cannot tell the temperature of something using spectroscopy

Wake wrote:
which all of our weather satellites are based upon.

Wake wrote:
He is convinced that what is being said about CO2 is that it warms the Earth rather than slows the exit of heat from absorbed from the Sun.

Wake wrote:
He claimed that visible light doesn't heat anything - that it causes chemical changes only.

Wake wrote:
Then he calls upon the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which totally contradicts what he just said.

Wake wrote:
Why aren't you angry with him?

Wake wrote:
I am not angry with anyone here save Nightmare who is delusional.

Wake wrote:There isn't a single thing that he knows about science. That would be fine save for the fact that he is always telling everyone else how they are uninformed but he is in the know.

Wake wrote:Have you even been reading him?

Wake wrote:Spectroscopy is a science almost two hundred years old and he is telling us that you cannot tell the temperature of something using spectroscopy which all of our weather satellites are based upon.

Wake wrote:He is convinced that what is being said about CO2 is that it warms the Earth rather than slows the exit of heat from absorbed from the Sun.

Wake wrote:He claimed that visible light doesn't heat anything - that it causes chemical changes only. Then he calls upon the Stefan-Boltzmann Law which totally contradicts what he just said.

Wake wrote:Why aren't you angry with him?

gfm7175 wrote:
For many months on numerous forums... Have had plenty of direct correspondence with him as well...

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...

But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.

The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.

Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?

It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.

No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

The Kelvin Color temperatures are not a measurement of temperature, Wake. It is a lighting scale used to show how blue a light is by comparing is to stars in a general temperature range += a thousand degrees or so. You most often see it on home lighting LED packages these days, but it has been used on theater and other professional lighting for quite awhile now.

Tell me, Wake. Is the LED producing a 'daylight' color of light actually 8500 deg F?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...

But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.

The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.

Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?

It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.

No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

The Kelvin Color temperatures are not a measurement of temperature, Wake. It is a lighting scale used to show how blue a light is by comparing is to stars in a general temperature range += a thousand degrees or so. You most often see it on home lighting LED packages these days, but it has been used on theater and other professional lighting for quite awhile now.

Tell me, Wake. Is the LED producing a 'daylight' color of light actually 8500 deg F?

Yes - the color of the light does indeed report the temperature of that very tiny piece of silicon and the extremely low power that is causing the light.

Wake wrote:
Because of the inefficiency,

Wake wrote:
the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates you have to calculate the emission

Wake wrote:
in order to know exactly HOW much heat

Wake wrote:
is generated since any addition power is emitted as IR over a larger section of the device.

Wake wrote:
LED's have extremely low bandpass

Wake wrote:
and the colors are essentially pure.

Wake wrote:
But that doesn't mean that they are very efficient.

Wake wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
For many months on numerous forums... Have had plenty of direct correspondence with him as well...

Well that is all we needed to know. Either you are Nightmare with another registration of a moronic science denier just like him.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...

But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.

The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.

Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?

It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.

No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

The Kelvin Color temperatures are not a measurement of temperature, Wake. It is a lighting scale used to show how blue a light is by comparing is to stars in a general temperature range += a thousand degrees or so. You most often see it on home lighting LED packages these days, but it has been used on theater and other professional lighting for quite awhile now.

Tell me, Wake. Is the LED producing a 'daylight' color of light actually 8500 deg F?

Yes - the color of the light does indeed report the temperature of that very tiny piece of silicon and the extremely low power that is causing the light.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Put your finger on that thing, Wake! It's barely warm to the touch! Even after operating for hours a hours! LED Christmas lights won't even melt snow!

Wake wrote:
Because of the inefficiency,

LED's are efficient, Wake. That's one reason why we use them! A LED that puts out the same light as a an incandescent 100w bulb uses only 13 watts, Wake! Most blue indicator LED's use a whopping 60mW or less!

Wake wrote:
the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates you have to calculate the emission

The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't the only way to produce light, Wake.

Wake wrote:
in order to know exactly HOW much heat

There is very little heat in an LED, even at the junction itself. A junction at 8500 deg F will no longer be a junction! That's WAY beyond the melting point of silicon or germanium!

Wake wrote:
is generated since any addition power is emitted as IR over a larger section of the device.

LED's don't emit infrared unless they are doped to do so, Wake! The only infrared coming off the device is from the temperature of the device housing!

Wake wrote:
LED's have extremely low bandpass

LED's put out pure light, Wake. There is no 'low bandpass'. There is nothing to 'pass'. Buzzword fallacy.

Wake wrote:
and the colors are essentially pure.

Not 'low bandpass', Wake.

Wake wrote:
But that doesn't mean that they are very efficient.

LEDs are very efficient, Wake! The amount of power put into them produces light more efficiently than almost any other method. The only other method more efficient bioluminescence, which is produced chemically. Do you know what 8500 deg F would do to the insides of a worm or a firefly???

You obviously are completely clueless how light can be produced. It does not necessarily require high temperatures at all. Indeed, light can be produced at very LOW temperatures indeed. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not cover the only way to produce light!

Then again, you deny quantum physics as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink. They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed. LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves. Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Remember that Google Earth can show you a picture of your own backyard from orbiting satellites so detailed that you can tell if you next door neighbor is out in her backyard sunbathing in the nude to avoid that bothersome bikini line.

...deleted Holy Link...

But they can't measure temperature. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature, Wake. They can only measure light.

The moron strikes again. Apparently he has never heard of the Kevin Color Temperature.

Nope. Never heard of it. Who's Kevin? What does he have to do with colors or temperature?

It never surprises me that you will use a typo to act as if no such thing as the Kelvin Color Temperatures exist. But then you show yourself to be a low-life everywhere else so it shouldn't be any different here.

No, I was making fun of your typo. You have no sense of humor either, apparently.

The Kelvin Color temperatures are not a measurement of temperature, Wake. It is a lighting scale used to show how blue a light is by comparing is to stars in a general temperature range += a thousand degrees or so. You most often see it on home lighting LED packages these days, but it has been used on theater and other professional lighting for quite awhile now.

Tell me, Wake. Is the LED producing a 'daylight' color of light actually 8500 deg F?

Yes - the color of the light does indeed report the temperature of that very tiny piece of silicon and the extremely low power that is causing the light.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Put your finger on that thing, Wake! It's barely warm to the touch! Even after operating for hours a hours! LED Christmas lights won't even melt snow!

Wake wrote:
Because of the inefficiency,

LED's are efficient, Wake. That's one reason why we use them! A LED that puts out the same light as a an incandescent 100w bulb uses only 13 watts, Wake! Most blue indicator LED's use a whopping 60mW or less!

Wake wrote:
the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law indicates you have to calculate the emission

The Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't the only way to produce light, Wake.

Wake wrote:
in order to know exactly HOW much heat

There is very little heat in an LED, even at the junction itself. A junction at 8500 deg F will no longer be a junction! That's WAY beyond the melting point of silicon or germanium!

Wake wrote:
is generated since any addition power is emitted as IR over a larger section of the device.

LED's don't emit infrared unless they are doped to do so, Wake! The only infrared coming off the device is from the temperature of the device housing!

Wake wrote:
LED's have extremely low bandpass

LED's put out pure light, Wake. There is no 'low bandpass'. There is nothing to 'pass'. Buzzword fallacy.

Wake wrote:
and the colors are essentially pure.

Not 'low bandpass', Wake.

Wake wrote:
But that doesn't mean that they are very efficient.

LEDs are very efficient, Wake! The amount of power put into them produces light more efficiently than almost any other method. The only other method more efficient bioluminescence, which is produced chemically. Do you know what 8500 deg F would do to the insides of a worm or a firefly???

You obviously are completely clueless how light can be produced. It does not necessarily require high temperatures at all. Indeed, light can be produced at very LOW temperatures indeed. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not cover the only way to produce light!

Then again, you deny quantum physics as well as the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

I lost you at your scientific method of measuring temperature - "stick your finger on it."

Wake wrote:
Hey stupid - it isn't just heat - it is total area that's that hot and an LED is about 10 micrometers across the semiconductor itself.

Wake wrote:
the LED's have a higher light output per watt than a florescent or filament bulb

Wake wrote:
but do not have a particularly high efficiency

Wake wrote:
but rather a very low power use

Wake wrote:
so that the pin point of light that you see will not feel particularly warm.

Wake wrote:
It never surprises me that your ideas of "science" go systematically against the laws of science.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink.

HarveyH55 wrote:
They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed.

HarveyH55 wrote:
LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink. They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed. LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves. Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

The LED itself inside of the 5 mm case is tiny. The cathode wire is almost large enough to block the light output and that has to be handled. That is why they are so badly current limited. That cathode attachment will burn out long before the LED chip.

Wake wrote:
Also - the LED output is unidirectional so it is only a dot that has to be enlarged using lenses.

Wake wrote:
The tops of those LEDs are the lense. When they originally came out we did all sorts of experiments to discover how much of the hyoe was true and most of it was. When you pass the LED light through a lense, the plastic isn't the proper color and so you lose quite a bit of power into the plastic.

Wake wrote:
The last project I worked on have several units and one of them was battery powered and used the LED color to signal the state of the battery.
So I would measure the battery voltage and time the flashes of a double Red/Green with mixed wavelength so that the color would go Green for good, then Yellow for needs a charge, to Red - none of the results are reliable.

Wake wrote:
I would use the time off on the flashes to control the amount of power that they used because power usage was important.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink. They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed. LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves. Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

The LED itself inside of the 5 mm case is tiny. The cathode wire is almost large enough to block the light output and that has to be handled. That is why they are so badly current limited. That cathode attachment will burn out long before the LED chip.

Academic, Wake. 8500 deg F DESTROYS the LED, the chip, the circuit board it's mounted in, EVERYTHING any where near it!

Wake wrote:
Also - the LED output is unidirectional so it is only a dot that has to be enlarged using lenses.

Nope. Goes out in any directions, Wake. The lens is used to concentrate it or make the light produced more uniformly spread across a wider area. Some LEDs have no lens at all. They use the spot of light itself and that's fine, such as your computer display you are staring at right now (assuming you've gotten rid of those CRT type displays!).

Wake wrote:
The tops of those LEDs are the lense. When they originally came out we did all sorts of experiments to discover how much of the hyoe was true and most of it was. When you pass the LED light through a lense, the plastic isn't the proper color and so you lose quite a bit of power into the plastic.

Nope. ALL the power that goes into the plastic comes out again, Wake. Remember the conservation of energy law?? Oh, that's right, you deny science.

Wake wrote:
The last project I worked on have several units and one of them was battery powered and used the LED color to signal the state of the battery.
So I would measure the battery voltage and time the flashes of a double Red/Green with mixed wavelength so that the color would go Green for good, then Yellow for needs a charge, to Red - none of the results are reliable.

Understandable, since you have no idea how a battery works or how to tell how much charge one has remaining.

Wake wrote:
I would use the time off on the flashes to control the amount of power that they used because power usage was important.

Did you buy your 555 and red/green LED from Radio Shack?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
The little 5mm LEDs produce heat, but they are encased in epoxy, which is a good enough heatsink. They make much more powerful LEDs these days, that put off a lot of heat, which needs to be managed. LEDs are current driven, just need a small voltage to make them conduct, and they take as much current as you give them. You need to limit that current, or they destroy themselves. Properly used, they are very efficient, compared to other options.

The LED itself inside of the 5 mm case is tiny. The cathode wire is almost large enough to block the light output and that has to be handled. That is why they are so badly current limited. That cathode attachment will burn out long before the LED chip.

Academic, Wake. 8500 deg F DESTROYS the LED, the chip, the circuit board it's mounted in, EVERYTHING any where near it!

Wake wrote:
Also - the LED output is unidirectional so it is only a dot that has to be enlarged using lenses.

Nope. Goes out in any directions, Wake. The lens is used to concentrate it or make the light produced more uniformly spread across a wider area. Some LEDs have no lens at all. They use the spot of light itself and that's fine, such as your computer display you are staring at right now (assuming you've gotten rid of those CRT type displays!).

Wake wrote:
The tops of those LEDs are the lense. When they originally came out we did all sorts of experiments to discover how much of the hyoe was true and most of it was. When you pass the LED light through a lense, the plastic isn't the proper color and so you lose quite a bit of power into the plastic.

Nope. ALL the power that goes into the plastic comes out again, Wake. Remember the conservation of energy law?? Oh, that's right, you deny science.

Wake wrote:
The last project I worked on have several units and one of them was battery powered and used the LED color to signal the state of the battery.
So I would measure the battery voltage and time the flashes of a double Red/Green with mixed wavelength so that the color would go Green for good, then Yellow for needs a charge, to Red - none of the results are reliable.

Understandable, since you have no idea how a battery works or how to tell how much charge one has remaining.

Wake wrote:
I would use the time off on the flashes to control the amount of power that they used because power usage was important.

Did you buy your 555 and red/green LED from Radio Shack?

Still another demonstration that you're an idiot. There's no point in explaining it to you since it is so far over your head the Goodyear Blimp could fly through the space.

HarveyH55 wrote:
LEDs also work as regular diodes,

HarveyH55 wrote:
they can be used to detect light,

HarveyH55 wrote:
and the can also be used as solar cells.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The lens is for focus, a small angle, gives a brighter, smaller spot.

HarveyH55 wrote:
A wide angle, spreads it out, but you lose brightness, but cover more area.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The color temperature, is a comparison of the light given off some metal heated until it incandescents.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't remember the metal or the details,

HarveyH55 wrote:
but it's just one of those standards things.