Climate deniers are sweating their @sses off

[ZenMode]

Wrong question. A satellite can certainly (and extremely inaccurately) measure temperature. Who indicated that they could not?

That was the implication from the post I responded to.

Wait, did you mean to ask "Why can't satellites measure the entire earth's average global equilibrium temperature to within a usable margin of error?" ... but that you couldn't be bothered to write what you mean or to mean what you write?

I meant to ask exactly what I asked.

Let me ask you, if you want to measure the average temperature of the water in a particular swimming pool, do you A. take a few measurements of the water at different points in the pool, both near the surface and near the bottom of the pool, at both ends of the pool and on both sides, and then apply statistical math to your measurements, or do you B. take one reading from roughly 800 miles away?

Let me know how you go about measuring the temperature of water in a swimming pool.

There are about 15 satellites that measure temperature in varying levels of the atmosphere, including at a level as low as where birds generally fly. Determining is climate change is real and to what degree it's impacting temperatures, if at all, is done in a variety of ways, not just through satellites or just through temperature measuring stations.

 

[Truth Detector]

[url="https://apnews.com/article/extreme-heat-global-average-temperature-hottest-year-record-4c5b496420620a02f9c295604cf8d2b3”] Climate deniers are sweating their asses off - October hottest month on record [/url]

October was the hottest on record globally, 1.7 degrees Celsius (3.1 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the pre-industrial average for the month — and the fifth straight month with such a mark in what will now almost certainly be the warmest year ever recorded.

October was a whopping 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the previous record for the month in 2019, surprising even Samantha Burgess, deputy director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, the European climate agency.

“The amount that we’re smashing records by is shocking,” Burgess said.

What a really dumb post. So, you don't know the difference between weather and climate. Telling.

Of course, you got this from apnews.

 

[IBDaMann]

That was the implication from the post I responded to. I meant to ask exactly what I asked.

Then you were being intentionally dishonest. I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt.

There are about 15 satellites that measure temperature in varying levels of the atmosphere, including at a level as low as where birds generally fly.

Nope. There are no satellites flying that low. In fact, no aircraft can reach the altitude of the lowest satellite. The highest-flying birds (of which there are extremely few) don't really get above seven miles altitude. LEO satellites start at 100 miles.

Also, when you say "measuring temperature", you need to specify that they are measuring relative temperature, and cannot measure absolute temperature for the reasons that Into the Night mentioned. This means that you can't get any sort of accurate temperature reading for any place on earth; you can only learn that one spot appears to be hotter than another spot, i.e. you can get a "heat map" without any actual temperatures being assigned. Satellites of this type are used for MASINT (analysis of signatures, to include temperature). Such satellites provide imagery of signatures, i.e. relative differences, that accurately point to an exact cause. IR sensor satellites, for example, can't tell absolute temperature but they can tell you what make and model of jet engine is in the airplane passing underneath by virtue of its unique temperature signature.

Determining is climate change is real and to what degree it's impacting temperatures, if at all, is done in a variety of ways ...

Nope. It is not done. Nobody is using satellites to determine if God or Allah is real either, or to what degree. Your religion is not science and no technology can verify your, or any other, religion. You picked a real loser to worship and you picked a bad time to be gullible when you were targeted for recruitment.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

TYPING ONE-HANDED
IT'S ALL I'M GOOD FOR THESE DAYS
OLD, WORTHLESS HATER​

Have you considered taking an art class? Meeting a woman or man of your age to share these remaining years of your life?

 

[Truth Detector]

Have you considered taking an art class? Meeting a woman or man of your age to share these remaining years of your life?

Absurdity; the last desperate refuge for the ignorant, the dishonest and the stupid.

I wish you could grow up. Really I do. But alas, that would require and IQ and a brain.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

THUMB UP MY FAT ASS
THE OTHER THUMB IN MY MOUTH
TYPING WITH MY NOSE​

You truly need help, Trump Dummy.

 

[Into the Night]

Why can't satellites measure temperature?

RQAA. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.

 

[Into the Night]

That was the implication from the post I responded to. I meant to ask exactly what I asked.

There are about 15 satellites that measure temperature in varying levels of the atmosphere, including at a level as low as where birds generally fly. Determining is climate change is real and to what degree it's impacting temperatures, if at all, is done in a variety of ways, not just through satellites or just through temperature measuring stations.

It is not possible for a satellite to measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
There are nowhere near enough thermometers to measure the temperature of the Earth.

 

[ZenMode]

Then you were being intentionally dishonest. I had been giving you the benefit of the doubt.


Nope. There are no satellites flying that low. In fact, no aircraft can reach the altitude of the lowest satellite. The highest-flying birds (of which there are extremely few) don't really get above seven miles altitude. LEO satellites start at 100 miles.

Where did I say satellites fly at the level of birds?

Also, when you say "measuring temperature", you need to specify that they are measuring relative temperature, and cannot measure absolute temperature for the reasons that Into the Night mentioned. This means that you can't get any sort of accurate temperature reading for any place on earth; you can only learn that one spot appears to be hotter than another spot, i.e. you can get a "heat map" without any actual temperatures being assigned. Satellites of this type are used for MASINT (analysis of signatures, to include temperature). Such satellites provide imagery of signatures, i.e. relative differences, that accurately point to an exact cause. IR sensor satellites, for example, can't tell absolute temperature but they can tell you what make and model of jet engine is in the airplane passing underneath by virtue of its unique temperature signature.


Nope. It is not done. Nobody is using satellites to determine if God or Allah is real either, or to what degree. Your religion is not science and no technology can verify your, or any other, religion. You picked a real loser to worship and you picked a bad time to be gullible when you were targeted for recruitment.

They measure brightness of the atmosphere, at varying levels, and translate it into temperature information.

 

[ZenMode]

It is not possible for a satellite to measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
There are nowhere near enough thermometers to measure the temperature of the Earth.

No, they can't measure it directly. That's what temperature stations do. Satellites measure atmospheric brightness which is converted to temperature information.

 

[Into the Night]

Where did I say satellites fly at the level of birds?

Trying to deny your own posts won't work.

They measure brightness of the atmosphere, at varying levels, and translate it into temperature information.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
You are STILL ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's laws.
You STILL have no idea of the difference between and dependent and and independent variable.

 

[Into the Night]

No, they can't measure it directly. That's what temperature stations do. Satellites measure atmospheric brightness which is converted to temperature information.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. There are not enough thermometers. They are not uniformly spaced. They are not read at the same time by the same authority.

Math errors: Failure to show unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Attempt to predict using statistical math. Use of dependent as independent. Use of independent as dependent.

Science errors: Discard of Planck's laws and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth. It is not possible measure the temperature of Earth. You don't know how much light is reflected, how much is refracted, how much is generated harmonically, and how much is generated due to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You are also now locked in paradox. Earlier you attempted to trap light. NOW you claim to measure the temperature using light emitted from Earth.

You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational.

 

[ZenMode]

The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

Ok. And?

There are not enough thermometers.

according to who?

They are not uniformly spaced.

Ok. Why does that matter?

They are not read at the same time by the same authority.

According to who?

Math errors: Failure to show unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Attempt to predict using statistical math. Use of dependent as independent. Use of independent as dependent.

according to who? Link?

Science errors: Discard of Planck's laws and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Oh. So ALL of the scientists studying this forgot all about laws? You should totally tell them! YUGE mistake!

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.

Correct.

It is not possible measure the temperature of Earth.

according to who? Link?

You don't know how much light is reflected, how much is refracted, how much is generated harmonically, and how much is generated due to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

According to who? Link?

You are also now locked in paradox. Earlier you attempted to trap light. NOW you claim to measure the temperature using light emitted from Earth.

My understanding is that it's light reflected from the Atmosphere, not the physical planet.

You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational.

There's no paradox, other than the one you've created in your head.

 

[ZenMode]

Trying to deny your own posts won't work.

My posts are right here. Where did I say satellites fly as low as birds fly?

 

[IBDaMann]

There are about 15 satellites that measure temperature in varying levels of the atmosphere, including at a level as low as where birds generally fly.

Where did I say satellites fly at the level of birds?

It was another case of your ambiguous writing. I see that you did not mean that the satellite is at the level of the birds taking the measurement. I suppose that you believe that satellites work like tricorders on Star Trek and just magically "know" the temperature data from a good distance away.

Are you ready for some bad news? It doesn't work that way. We don't have tricorder technology yet. Have you ever used a thermometer to measure the temperature from a distance? Yes or no?

They measure brightness of the atmosphere, at varying levels, and translate it into temperature information.

ZenMode Error: Dishonesty, Passing Relative Temperature Information as Absolute Temperature Information. Here you are being totally dishonest. Did you read my post or did you ignore it? I just got finished explaining how you need to specify that this is relative temperature information and that you can't just leave it implying absolute temperature information, ... but here you are, the very next post, promptly claiming "temperature information", implying absolute information. My answer to you is that your omission of that critical word in this case is the root of your disinformation.

Satellites are limited to scanning the entire cone between themselves and whatever solid/ocean background, at a time. They have no way of filtering out everything but one point in the entire cone. Whatever the sensor sees is an amalgam of everything within that cone, all merged into one numeric value. Please remember this when we discuss the gaping margin of error in satellite data.

 

[ZenMode]

It was another case of your ambiguous writing. I see that you did not mean that the satellite is at the level of the birds taking the measurement. I suppose that you believe that satellites work like tricorders on Star Trek and just magically "know" the temperature data from a good distance away.

Are you ready for some bad news? It doesn't work that way. We don't have tricorder technology yet. Have you ever used a thermometer to measure the temperature from a distance? Yes or no?

Yes, I have. This super-fancy, space-age tool can be purchased at Walmart for $19.99. Batteries included!

https://www.walmart.com/ip/1499077537

ZenMode Error: Dishonesty, Passing Relative Temperature Information as Absolute Temperature Information. Here you are being totally dishonest. Did you read my post or did you ignore it? I just got finished explaining how you need to specify that this is relative temperature information and that you can't just leave it implying absolute temperature information, ... but here you are, the very next post, promptly claiming "temperature information", implying absolute information. My answer to you is that your omission of that critical word in this case is the root of your disinformation.

I understand what you said. I also understand that you expect me to believe what you said. Why should I?

Satellites are limited to scanning the entire cone between themselves and whatever solid/ocean background, at a time. They have no way of filtering out everything but one point in the entire cone. Whatever the sensor sees is an amalgam of everything within that cone, all merged into one numeric value. Please remember this when we discuss the gaping margin of error in satellite data.

So, if you are going to claim that the methodologies are inaccurate, I'm going to need some kind of source. Thanks

 

[Into the Night]

Ok. And?

RQAA

according to who?

RQAA

Ok. Why does that matter?

RQAA

According to who?

RQAA

according to who? Link?

RQAA

Oh. So ALL of the scientists studying this forgot all about laws? You should totally tell them! YUGE mistake!

Omniscience fallacy. You don't get to speak for all scientists. Science is not scientists.

Correct.

You just locked yourself in another paradox. You claim to know the emissivity of Earth, then you agree it's not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

according to who? Link?

RQAA.

According to who? Link?

RQAA.

My understanding is that it's light reflected from the Atmosphere, not the physical planet.

The atmosphere IS part of the physical planet. You cannot resolve your paradox by pivoting.

There's no paradox, other than the one you've created in your head.

You cannot resolve a paradox by denying it exists, dude. You cannot claim carbon dioxide traps light and you can measure temperature using light emitted from Earth at the same time.

 

[Into the Night]

My posts are right here. Where did I say satellites fly as low as birds fly?

RQAA.
Repeating your denial of your own posts won't work.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes, I have. This super-fancy, space-age tool can be purchased at Walmart for $19.99. Batteries included!
https://www.walmart.com/ip/1499077537

Not accurate, particularly at emissivities much different then .95 (the default setting on such sensors). All these are really good for is looking for a cold spot in an engine (relative indications) or hot or cold spots in roofs (relative indications) which could show a problem with insulation. NONE of them measure the temperature of the Earth.

I understand what you said. I also understand that you expect me to believe what you said. Why should I?

RQAA.

So, if you are going to claim that the methodologies are inaccurate, I'm going to need some kind of source. Thanks

RQAA.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, I have. This super-fancy, space-age tool can be purchased at Walmart for $19.99. Batteries included!

Good. I imagine you researched the specs, yes? You know that a human using the ThermPro will be using it in close distances and will likely notice all objects that are "in the way" and will ensure there are no heat sources directly behind the target that will substantively affect the measure. As such, a human will get optimal results, i.e. +/-1.5% at a distance of 20 cm, assuming there are zero factors inducing any sort of error. This means that one can expect roughly the following errors if used for your purposes:

Distance Accuracy
20 cm ± 1.5%
1 meter ± 7.5075%
5 meters ± 38.25%
100 meters ± 750.75%
1 mile ± 12,070.08%
5 miles ± 60,275.4%

All satellites orbit at altitudes greater than five miles and, of course, will have much greater error. If it were to give you a reading of 287.15K (14C), you wouldn't know if it were actually close to absolute zero or if it were actually closer to the temperature at center of the sun.

This is why this is not being done. You can't measure absolute temperature to any usable accuracy in this way.

I understand what you said.

This has yet to be seen. I have serious doubts. I bet that I'm not the only one.

I also understand that you expect me to believe what you said. Why should I?

You believe incorrectly. You are the one affirmatively arguing Global Warming, not I. I am explaining why I won't be adopting your religion. I clearly have no expectations about your beliefs and your misunderstandings.

So, if you are going to claim that the methodologies are inaccurate, I'm going to need some kind of source.

Why do you need a source? Why don't you simply perform your due diligence? Can't you look up specs? Can't you do math? If you can't, you have to go with what I tell you. If you aren't going to go with what I tell you, you have to perform your due diligence by researching the specs, the science, and by doing the math (or "maths" if you're a Brit).