Remember me
▼ Content

You can never know the emissivity?


You can never know the emissivity?17-09-2017 21:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
While we have a certain nightmare telling us that we cannot know the emissivity of the Earth and hence cannot calculate a mean global temperature in fact it is quite easy.

https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/12/27/emissivity-of-the-ocean/

We directly measure temperatures on the ground - through the mid-atmosphere with weather balloons and in the higher reaches with rockets and satellites.

Simply know the temperature/flux at ground level and use the progressively higher temperatures to calibrate emissivity.

God it must hurt to be an instrument technician and be wrong so much.
17-09-2017 21:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Wake wrote:
While we have a certain nightmare telling us that we cannot know the emissivity of the Earth and hence cannot calculate a mean global temperature in fact it is quite easy.

...deleted Holy Link...

Not as easy as you think.
Wake wrote:
We directly measure temperatures on the ground - through the mid-atmosphere with weather balloons and in the higher reaches with rockets and satellites.

1) satellites are incapable of measuring temperature.
2) Temperature readings on the ground, and even thermometers mounted in balloons, do not give us the temperature of the Earth. Again, you fail to grasp statistical math.
3) Emissivity varies radically in the space of a few inches as you move across the surface of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
Simply know the temperature/flux at ground level and use the progressively higher temperatures to calibrate emissivity.


You don't know the temperature of the Earth, and you don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You don't have enough information to perform such a calculation.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 01:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
While we have a certain nightmare telling us that we cannot know the emissivity of the Earth and hence cannot calculate a mean global temperature in fact it is quite easy.

...deleted Holy Link...

Not as easy as you think.
Wake wrote:
We directly measure temperatures on the ground - through the mid-atmosphere with weather balloons and in the higher reaches with rockets and satellites.

1) satellites are incapable of measuring temperature.
2) Temperature readings on the ground, and even thermometers mounted in balloons, do not give us the temperature of the Earth. Again, you fail to grasp statistical math.
3) Emissivity varies radically in the space of a few inches as you move across the surface of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
Simply know the temperature/flux at ground level and use the progressively higher temperatures to calibrate emissivity.


You don't know the temperature of the Earth, and you don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You don't have enough information to perform such a calculation.


You are saying this blankly and without one shred of proof or any citations. When I publish a citation proving that you can know the emissivity and the temperature of the entire planet you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and "La-la-la" loudly so as not to hear it. Then you delete it and call it a "holy link".

Then you "correct" my postings by saying that you know about "transposing terms" but that "transpose terms" changes the calculation.

You don't know about la nina nor it's equivalent in the Atlantic. But you will talk about it in meaningless proverbs. I suggest that you revert to litebrain's technique and simply hold conversations with yourself.
18-09-2017 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
While we have a certain nightmare telling us that we cannot know the emissivity of the Earth and hence cannot calculate a mean global temperature in fact it is quite easy.

...deleted Holy Link...

Not as easy as you think.
Wake wrote:
We directly measure temperatures on the ground - through the mid-atmosphere with weather balloons and in the higher reaches with rockets and satellites.

1) satellites are incapable of measuring temperature.
2) Temperature readings on the ground, and even thermometers mounted in balloons, do not give us the temperature of the Earth. Again, you fail to grasp statistical math.
3) Emissivity varies radically in the space of a few inches as you move across the surface of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
Simply know the temperature/flux at ground level and use the progressively higher temperatures to calibrate emissivity.


You don't know the temperature of the Earth, and you don't know the emissivity of the Earth. You don't have enough information to perform such a calculation.


You are saying this blankly and without one shred of proof or any citations.

I don't need citations. Anyone that looks at the difference between grass, concrete, water, and snow can see the change of emissivity over a very short horizontal distance.

Anyone that understands statistical math understands that you can't determine the temperature of a planet using the few thermometers we have.

Anyone that understands the Stefan-Boltzmann law understands that emissivity is part of the equation, it can't be ignored, and you can't use the equation to calculate the radiance of the Earth from an unknown emissivity and temperature and you can't calculate the temperature from an unknown radiance and emissivity.

Anyone that has ever built a satellite understands that their instrumentation is based on light.

Wake wrote:
When I publish a citation proving

Citations are not a proof. They do not even legitimize an argument. It is using someone else to make an argument for you since you're too lazy to think for yourself.
Wake wrote:
that you can know the emissivity and the temperature of the entire planet

You can't.
Wake wrote:
you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and "La-la-la" loudly so as not to hear it.

WRONG. I have described why you can't.
Wake wrote:
Then you delete it and call it a "holy link".

When you depend on another's argument as your own. You are not thinking. You have no argument, and feel you must bring in someone else. They are not here to debate their point. Your lazy thinking depends on the Holy Link, which I delete on site. I see no reason to perpetuate repeating the thing during the following responses.

I don't generally provide links. I don't depend on them. I do my own thinking. I expect you to research what I say by looking it up from an authoritative source if you feel you need to.

The internet is not an Oracle of Triuth.

Wake wrote:
Then you "correct" my postings by saying that you know about "transposing terms" but that "transpose terms" changes the calculation.

You are NOT transposing terms. You are modifying the equation by REMOVING terms and ADDING terms.
Wake wrote:
You don't know about la nina

But I do. This cause of La Nina and El Nino is well known and discussed among actual scientists (oceanographers and meteorologists). You might want to research this discussion rather than believing in the 'ocean warming' theory pushed by the Church of Global Warming.

Wake wrote:
nor it's equivalent in the Atlantic.

The Atlantic is a much smaller ocean, so the effect is not as pronounced.
Wake wrote:
But you will talk about it in meaningless proverbs

I am not using proverbs.
Wake wrote:
I suggest that you revert to litebrain's technique and simply hold conversations with yourself.

I am not quoting from anything other than verifiable sources. You can look them up yourself.
The north and south equatorial currents are well known and have been used by sailors for ages. The equatorial counter-current, which is weak by comparison, may or may not be very strong. It is the strength of this counter-current that produces the effect of warm waters collecting on one side of the other of the Pacific, which in turn produces the El Nino/La Nina or neutral pattern. This counter current also has been known to sailors for ages.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2017 23:24
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
I don't need citations. Anyone that looks at the difference between grass, concrete, water, and snow can see the change of emissivity over a very short horizontal distance.

Anyone that understands statistical math understands that you can't determine the temperature of a planet using the few thermometers we have.

Anyone that understands the Stefan-Boltzmann law understands that emissivity is part of the equation, it can't be ignored, and you can't use the equation to calculate the radiance of the Earth from an unknown emissivity and temperature and you can't calculate the temperature from an unknown radiance and emissivity.

Anyone that has ever built a satellite understands that their instrumentation is based on light.

Citations are not a proof. They do not even legitimize an argument.
When you depend on another's argument as your own. You are not thinking. You have no argument, and feel you must bring in someone else. They are not here to debate their point. Your lazy thinking depends on the Holy Link, which I delete on site. I see no reason to perpetuate repeating the thing during the following responses.

I don't generally provide links. I don't depend on them. I do my own thinking. I expect you to research what I say by looking it up from an authoritative source if you feel you need to.


There you have it - comedy central again and again. Science doesn't matter. Only his opinion. That's what counts.

Quoting studies and papers doesn't prove a thing - only opinion.
Edited on 18-09-2017 23:26
19-09-2017 02:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I don't need citations. Anyone that looks at the difference between grass, concrete, water, and snow can see the change of emissivity over a very short horizontal distance.

Anyone that understands statistical math understands that you can't determine the temperature of a planet using the few thermometers we have.

Anyone that understands the Stefan-Boltzmann law understands that emissivity is part of the equation, it can't be ignored, and you can't use the equation to calculate the radiance of the Earth from an unknown emissivity and temperature and you can't calculate the temperature from an unknown radiance and emissivity.

Anyone that has ever built a satellite understands that their instrumentation is based on light.

Citations are not a proof. They do not even legitimize an argument.
When you depend on another's argument as your own. You are not thinking. You have no argument, and feel you must bring in someone else. They are not here to debate their point. Your lazy thinking depends on the Holy Link, which I delete on site. I see no reason to perpetuate repeating the thing during the following responses.

I don't generally provide links. I don't depend on them. I do my own thinking. I expect you to research what I say by looking it up from an authoritative source if you feel you need to.


There you have it - comedy central again and again. Science doesn't matter. Only his opinion. That's what counts.

Quoting studies and papers doesn't prove a thing - only opinion.


Studies and papers ARE opinions, dumbass. They are NOT a proof.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2017 02:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I don't need citations. Anyone that looks at the difference between grass, concrete, water, and snow can see the change of emissivity over a very short horizontal distance.

Anyone that understands statistical math understands that you can't determine the temperature of a planet using the few thermometers we have.

Anyone that understands the Stefan-Boltzmann law understands that emissivity is part of the equation, it can't be ignored, and you can't use the equation to calculate the radiance of the Earth from an unknown emissivity and temperature and you can't calculate the temperature from an unknown radiance and emissivity.

Anyone that has ever built a satellite understands that their instrumentation is based on light.

Citations are not a proof. They do not even legitimize an argument.
When you depend on another's argument as your own. You are not thinking. You have no argument, and feel you must bring in someone else. They are not here to debate their point. Your lazy thinking depends on the Holy Link, which I delete on site. I see no reason to perpetuate repeating the thing during the following responses.

I don't generally provide links. I don't depend on them. I do my own thinking. I expect you to research what I say by looking it up from an authoritative source if you feel you need to.


There you have it - comedy central again and again. Science doesn't matter. Only his opinion. That's what counts.

Quoting studies and papers doesn't prove a thing - only opinion.


Studies and papers ARE opinions, dumbass. They are NOT a proof.


Thanks again for showing us your utter lack of any scientific training.
19-09-2017 02:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I don't need citations. Anyone that looks at the difference between grass, concrete, water, and snow can see the change of emissivity over a very short horizontal distance.

Anyone that understands statistical math understands that you can't determine the temperature of a planet using the few thermometers we have.

Anyone that understands the Stefan-Boltzmann law understands that emissivity is part of the equation, it can't be ignored, and you can't use the equation to calculate the radiance of the Earth from an unknown emissivity and temperature and you can't calculate the temperature from an unknown radiance and emissivity.

Anyone that has ever built a satellite understands that their instrumentation is based on light.

Citations are not a proof. They do not even legitimize an argument.
When you depend on another's argument as your own. You are not thinking. You have no argument, and feel you must bring in someone else. They are not here to debate their point. Your lazy thinking depends on the Holy Link, which I delete on site. I see no reason to perpetuate repeating the thing during the following responses.

I don't generally provide links. I don't depend on them. I do my own thinking. I expect you to research what I say by looking it up from an authoritative source if you feel you need to.


There you have it - comedy central again and again. Science doesn't matter. Only his opinion. That's what counts.

Quoting studies and papers doesn't prove a thing - only opinion.


Studies and papers ARE opinions, dumbass. They are NOT a proof.


Thanks again for showing us your utter lack of any scientific training.

Science is not studies and papers, dumbass. It isn't 'training' or credentials either.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2017 16:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Thanks again for showing us your utter lack of any scientific training.

Science is not studies and papers, dumbass. It isn't 'training' or credentials either.[/quote]

Yeah, we understand your position - science is opinion and words few people recognize.
19-09-2017 20:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Thanks again for showing us your utter lack of any scientific training.

Science is not studies and papers, dumbass. It isn't 'training' or credentials either.


Yeah, we understand your position - science is opinion and words few people recognize.[/quote]

Science is not opinion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Why do you want to keep redefining science? Why do you want to keep denying science and mathematics?


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2017 22:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Thanks again for showing us your utter lack of any scientific training.

Science is not studies and papers, dumbass. It isn't 'training' or credentials either.


Yeah, we understand your position - science is opinion and words few people recognize.


Science is not opinion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Why do you want to keep redefining science? Why do you want to keep denying science and mathematics?


You keep telling us that. And then you tell us that the papers that are providing information for falsifying theories aren't science. That the very data necessary for proving theories wrong are "not science".

This is like your "nothing can store heat" idiocy.
19-09-2017 22:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Thanks again for showing us your utter lack of any scientific training.

Science is not studies and papers, dumbass. It isn't 'training' or credentials either.


Yeah, we understand your position - science is opinion and words few people recognize.


Science is not opinion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Why do you want to keep redefining science? Why do you want to keep denying science and mathematics?


You keep telling us that. And then you tell us that the papers that are providing information for falsifying theories aren't science.

Papers don't provide information. They are opinions only. Sometimes, they may even describe a theory or present a case for destroying one. A paper is just another medium to move and store information. They are not information themselves.
Wake wrote:
That the very data necessary for proving theories wrong are "not science".

Data is not science. It is evidence. Is it observation. Neither evidence nor observation are science. Neither are a theory that describes nature.

Because they are observations, they are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone sees observations differently, since observations are interpreted by different people, each according to their own world view.

No theory of science contains an observation as part of that theory. Observations may inspire a theory (anything can inspire a theory), or they may present evidence convincing enough to destroy one, but they are not part of the theory itself.

Wake wrote:
This is like your "nothing can store heat" idiocy.

This is addressed in another post. It happens to be a long post. Read the entire thing.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 19-09-2017 22:39
19-09-2017 22:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Thanks again for showing us your utter lack of any scientific training.

Science is not studies and papers, dumbass. It isn't 'training' or credentials either.


Yeah, we understand your position - science is opinion and words few people recognize.


Science is not opinion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Why do you want to keep redefining science? Why do you want to keep denying science and mathematics?


You keep telling us that. And then you tell us that the papers that are providing information for falsifying theories aren't science.

Papers don't provide information. They are opinions only. Sometimes, they may even describe a theory or present a case for destroying one. A paper is just another medium to move and store information. They are not information themselves.
Wake wrote:
That the very data necessary for proving theories wrong are "not science".

Data is not science. It is evidence. Is it observation. Neither evidence nor observation are science. Neither are a theory that describes nature.

Because they are observations, they are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone sees observations differently, since observations are interpreted by different people, each according to their own world view.

No theory of science contains an observation as part of that theory. Observations may inspire a theory (anything can inspire a theory), or they may present evidence convincing enough to destroy one, but they are not part of the theory itself.

Wake wrote:
This is like your "nothing can store heat" idiocy.

This is addressed in another post. It happens to be a long post. Read the entire thing.


Now everyone capable of thought sees what your postings are worth.
19-09-2017 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Thanks again for showing us your utter lack of any scientific training.

Science is not studies and papers, dumbass. It isn't 'training' or credentials either.


Yeah, we understand your position - science is opinion and words few people recognize.


Science is not opinion. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Why do you want to keep redefining science? Why do you want to keep denying science and mathematics?


You keep telling us that. And then you tell us that the papers that are providing information for falsifying theories aren't science.

Papers don't provide information. They are opinions only. Sometimes, they may even describe a theory or present a case for destroying one. A paper is just another medium to move and store information. They are not information themselves.
Wake wrote:
That the very data necessary for proving theories wrong are "not science".

Data is not science. It is evidence. Is it observation. Neither evidence nor observation are science. Neither are a theory that describes nature.

Because they are observations, they are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone sees observations differently, since observations are interpreted by different people, each according to their own world view.

No theory of science contains an observation as part of that theory. Observations may inspire a theory (anything can inspire a theory), or they may present evidence convincing enough to destroy one, but they are not part of the theory itself.

Wake wrote:
This is like your "nothing can store heat" idiocy.

This is addressed in another post. It happens to be a long post. Read the entire thing.


Now everyone capable of thought sees what your postings are worth.


Apparently not you. This is also addressed in another post.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2017 16:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

Data is not science. It is evidence. Is it observation. Neither evidence nor observation are science. Neither are a theory that describes nature.



This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard anyone ever make.
What you are claiming here using Einstein's General Theory of Relativity as an example. The data collected showed that light bends when moving past an object like our sun according to his theory that gravity distorts space is not science ?
This means that in your ignorance that you will define what science is and anyone who does not agree with you is wrong. I think it's funny though that Wake who also claims that climate change does not happen gets along with you so well.
20-09-2017 19:41
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake is also good for this as well. It is well known that when water is heated on a stove that it remains warm as well as what it is heated in when the source of heat is removed. This is because heat can be stored even though Wake and ITN claim that it can't be stored.
20-09-2017 20:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake is also good for this as well. It is well known that when water is heated on a stove that it remains warm as well as what it is heated in when the source of heat is removed. This is because heat can be stored even though Wake and ITN claim that it can't be stored.


Let me guess - you are incapable of reading? I have claimed exactly the opposite but you don't seem to be able to understand that. Or is it because you prefer to invent your own responses from me?

There really is something wrong with you. You and nightmare both seem to think that "science" is waving your hands about and talking to the stars.

Nightmare tells us that scientific papers aren't science. That studies testing theories aren't science.

And I give you a reference to a paper showing what angular momentum on a quantum level is all about and you run like it like a girl from a spider.

Neither of you is worth the effort any longer so don't expect me to pay any attention to your postings anymore.
20-09-2017 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Data is not science. It is evidence. Is it observation. Neither evidence nor observation are science. Neither are a theory that describes nature.



This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard anyone ever make.

That's because you are illiterate in philosophy.
James_ wrote:
What you are claiming here using Einstein's General Theory of Relativity as an example.

Okay. Let's use that example.
James_ wrote:
The data collected showed that light bends when moving past an object like our sun according to his theory that gravity distorts space is not science ?

No, it is DATA. It is an observation only.

The theory that was tested by this observation is the science, not the observation itself. Observation is only evidence. In this case, it was yet another test to try to destroy Einstein's theory, which it survived.

Observations are subject the the problems of phenomenology. This one is too. The theory it was testing is not. The theory is the science, not the observation that tested it.

James_ wrote:
This means that in your ignorance that you will define what science is

Science, as currently defined by philosophy, is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Those theories must be internally and externally consistent. That is all science is.
James_ wrote:
and anyone who does not agree with you is wrong.

Philosophers have discussed the meaning of science through the ages. This is the current definition of it. Unfortunately, you are illiterate in philosophy.
James_ wrote:
I think it's funny though that Wake who also claims that climate change does not happen gets along with you so well.

You obviously haven't paying attention.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2017 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
James_ wrote:
Wake is also good for this as well. It is well known that when water is heated on a stove that it remains warm as well as what it is heated in when the source of heat is removed. This is because heat can be stored even though Wake and ITN claim that it can't be stored.


Neither heat nor thermal energy can be stored.

Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is the MOVEMENT of thermal energy. If there is no movement, there is no heat.

Thermal energy cannot be stored. The pot of water cools. Heat is still flowing. The fact that it takes time to do it changes nothing.

Let's look at the reverse situation. You put a pot of water on the stove and turn on the stove to heat it.

It takes time to heat it as well. It is NOT because the pot of water has stored the energy it hasn't yet absorbed!

Resistance to change is NOT storage. Heat is always flowing. Entropy is always increasing in any system.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2017 21:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10166)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake is also good for this as well. It is well known that when water is heated on a stove that it remains warm as well as what it is heated in when the source of heat is removed. This is because heat can be stored even though Wake and ITN claim that it can't be stored.


Let me guess - you are incapable of reading? I have claimed exactly the opposite but you don't seem to be able to understand that. Or is it because you prefer to invent your own responses from me?

The man's obviously confused.
Wake wrote:
There really is something wrong with you. You and nightmare both seem to think that "science" is waving your hands about and talking to the stars.

Actually, there ARE theories about waving your hands AND talking to the stars. They are both part of physics.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare tells us that scientific papers aren't science.

They aren't. Science isn't papers. Science is a set of theories.
Wake wrote:
That studies testing theories aren't science.

Testing the falseness of a theory is part of the requirements of science, but not science itself.
Wake wrote:
And I give you a reference to a paper showing what angular momentum on a quantum level is all about and you run like it like a girl from a spider.

Probably because it doesn't address his model.
Wake wrote:
Neither of you is worth the effort any longer so don't expect me to pay any attention to your postings anymore.

You've already made that 'threat', liar.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-09-2017 21:37
21-09-2017 05:38
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Sheesh you 2 are a couple of wind bags.
Edited on 21-09-2017 06:30




Join the debate You can never know the emissivity?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Emissivity313-08-2019 20:20
The Emissivity of the Earth7424-02-2018 21:43
The Emissivity Question5523-06-2017 01:01
Emissivity of the ocean3829-05-2017 19:34
If the emissivity of a body decreases then its temperature should decrease.6010-03-2016 18:28
▲ 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