Climate deniers are sweating their @sses off

[ZenMode]

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

If you can't support your claim, just let me know.

 

[Into the Night]

If you can't support your claim, just let me know.

RQAA.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA

RQAA

RQAA

RQAA

RQAA

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

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.

RQAA.

RQAA.

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

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.

 

[ZenMode]

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%

The question wasn't how accurate a $20 tool from Walmart can be. You made the claim that you can't determine temperature from a "good distance away". Yes, a $20 plastic tool is going to have accuracy issues, but nobody believes scientists/researchers are using Walmart tools.

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.

Based on what do you believe that your concerns aren't addressed by those doing the research?

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

Link? Again, you and Into the Night are highly proficient at making claims/declarations, but very poor at providing supporting info.

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


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.


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).

 

[Dutch Uncle]

The question wasn't how accurate a $20 tool from Walmart can be. You made the claim that you can't determine temperature from a "good distance away". Yes, a $20 plastic tool is going to have accuracy issues, but nobody believes scientists/researchers are using Walmart tools.
Based on what do you believe that your concerns aren't addressed by those doing the research? Link? Again, you and Into the Night are highly proficient at making claims/declarations, but very poor at providing supporting info.

Sybil doesn't believe satellites can take temperature readings from orbit.

https://eyes.nasa.gov/apps/earth/

https://eyes.nasa.gov/apps/earth/#/vitalsign?vitalsign=satellites&altid=0&animating=f&start=&end=

Mantra 68 Science-denying dumbass


^^^
Fuckwit never heard of thermal-imaging sights, Infrared sights and other such equipment.

 

[Into the Night]

The question wasn't how accurate a $20 tool from Walmart can be.

Yes it was. Don't try to deny your own posts.

You made the claim that you can't determine temperature from a "good distance away". Yes, a $20 plastic tool is going to have accuracy issues, but nobody believes scientists/researchers are using Walmart tools.

Yet you pointed to it as the tool that 'scientists' and 'researches' use.

Science isn't scientists or researchers. It is not a research or study. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are STILL trying to ignore them.

Based on what do you believe that your concerns aren't addressed by those doing the research? Link?

RQAA.

Again, you and Into the Night are highly proficient at making claims/declarations, but very poor at providing supporting info.

Lie. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Sybil doesn't believe satellites can take temperature readings from orbit.

Lie. You DO believe it, Sock.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Lie. You DO believe it, Sock.

Of course, I believe NASA and other nation's satellites can take temperature readings from space. It's in the NASA links I posted.

As for fucking morons and Nazis like you who spend all their time spanking their monkeys, I don't expect you to have a firm grip on reality, son....because you are a schizo, Sybil.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes it was. Don't try to deny your own posts.

Yet you pointed to it as the tool that 'scientists' and 'researches' use.

Science isn't scientists or researchers. It is not a research or study. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are STILL trying to ignore them.

RQAA.

Lie. RQAA.

Or, for those who actually understand English, I referenced the tool to refute the claim that it's impossible to determine temperature from a distance.

 

[IBDaMann]

The question wasn't how accurate a $20 tool from Walmart can be.

The statement is that no human has ever measured the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to any useable accuracy because it is not currently possible. You were previously asked to explain how you imagine that such a temperature could somehow be measured to within, say, half of one degree Celsius. You EVADED.

If you wish to assert that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature can, in fact, be measured to within, say, half of one degree Celsius, then start explaining. Otherwise, the statement stands.

You made the claim that you can't determine temperature from a "good distance away".

... and you are a liar. I specified that the absolute temperature cannot be determined to any usable accuracy from a "good distance away." You, on the other hand, remain dishonest and insist on obscuring the distinction between relative temperature and absolute temperature. I clearly stated that satellites can discern differing temperature signatures and with AI can identify the specific source of a given signature.

So I'll ask you in a different way. In what manner that your Church explained to you can the earth's average global equilibrium temperature be measured to within, say, half of one degree Celsius? You are affirmatively claiming that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature can be measured/computed to within, say, half of one degree Celsius, right? Great! Lay it on us. Tell us the recipe.

By the way, you claim that thientithts and researchers currently use sophisticated "sufficiently accurate" IR sensors to measure earth's average global equilibrium temperature. For that to be possible, the sensor would have to be far more accurate than a mere ±1.5% at 20cm or ±38.25% at 5m. It would have to be ±0.29% all the way to earth, over 100 miles, *and* it would only work when the spot being measured is -100∘C or colder. If the spot being measured happens to be 30C (86F, 303.15 Kelvin) then the sensor must have an accuracy of ±0.165% all the way down to earth, and even then, you would only have the temperature of that one, single, tiny spot on the earth.

Your takeaways:

* There is no such IR sensor technology with that kind of advanced Star Trek accuracy; you are discussing science fiction as though it were thettled thienth.
* One thousand of such hypothetical satellites working in tandem would take too long to cover the entire earth and prevent timing/delay error to totally kill your desired accuracy of half of one degree Clesius. In fact, that alone would add more than ±5∘C to your resulting margin of error.

 

[Bigdog]

discussing weather history.

"Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm-- not the exception.

Figure 5. Illustrated here are results from recent stomata studies which show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record. A precipitous drop in CO2 during the "Younger Dryas" was captured nicely by the stomata record, but missed by the CO2 record in ice cores. "

https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

For those who missed plant biology, Stomata are the "breathing" holes in leaves (which includes pine needles).

And "Air Flask" sampling started in 1957.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course, I believe NASA and other nation's satellites can take temperature readings from space. It's in the NASA links I posted.

As for fucking morons and Nazis like you who spend all their time spanking their monkeys, I don't expect you to have a firm grip on reality, son....because you are a schizo, Sybil.

NASA cannot measure the temperature of the Earth, Sock. As for you being a moron, you've already demonstrated that. There are no Nazis.

 

[Into the Night]

Or, for those who actually understand English, I referenced the tool to refute the claim that it's impossible to determine temperature from a distance.

It is.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No satellite can measure the temperature of the Earth or measure any absolute temperature of any part of Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

 

[Into the Night]

discussing weather history.

"Contrary to the prevailing notion of CO2 stability, CO2 swings of 20-50 ppm or more over timespans of 500-1000 years appear to be the norm-- not the exception.

Figure 5. Illustrated here are results from recent stomata studies which show that CO2 was more variable and the average CO2 concentrations have been significantly higher during our Holocene interglacial period (last 11,000 years) than are indicated by the ice core record. A precipitous drop in CO2 during the "Younger Dryas" was captured nicely by the stomata record, but missed by the CO2 record in ice cores. "

https://geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

For those who missed plant biology, Stomata are the "breathing" holes in leaves (which includes pine needles).

And "Air Flask" sampling started in 1957.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. Ice cores do not measure CO2. Ice is permeable to CO2.
There is no 'stomata' record. Fossils are not stomata. Quoting random numbers from websites does not make them anything but random numbers.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[ZenMode]

It is.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No satellite can measure the temperature of the Earth or measure any absolute temperature of any part of Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

Based on what? Link?

 

[ZenMode]

The statement is that no human has ever measured the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to any useable accuracy because it is not currently possible.

Based on what? When you have scientists from around the world studying climate change, CO2 and global temperatures independently, yet they all come up with the same result, are we to believe that nobody has pointed out to them that what they're doing can't be done?

You were previously asked to explain how you imagine that such a temperature could somehow be measured to within, say, half of one degree Celsius. You EVADED.

If you wish to assert that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature can, in fact, be measured to within, say, half of one degree Celsius, then start explaining. Otherwise, the statement stands.

Satellite measurements are used for confirmation of rising temperatures. The temperature stations are the primary tool for measuring global temperatures. I don't know how the information collected from satellites, which is then fed into super-computers, confirms their beliefs. The science community prides itself on proving each other wrong. That's why you have peer reviewing and a reluctance to use the term "fact" even when all signs point in one direction. Even scientists who talk about climate change now use terms like "high probability". When talking about temperature increases, temperatures are tracked beginning in 1880. That isn't a random number that the science community pulled out of their collective ass. It was picked because that's when there were enough temperature measuring stations to have an accurate picture of historical temperature. Again, this isn't only NOAA or only NASA or only UB Berkeley. This is many countries, independently studying all available information, and agreeing. It's also not just temperature measurements. They look at flowering dates of plants, nesting and hatching dates of birds. It's all combined to get an accurate picture.

... and you are a liar. I specified that the absolute temperature cannot be determined to any usable accuracy from a "good distance away." You, on the other hand, remain dishonest and insist on obscuring the distinction between relative temperature and absolute temperature. I clearly stated that satellites can discern differing temperature signatures and with AI can identify the specific source of a given signature.

So I'll ask you in a different way. In what manner that your Church explained to you can the earth's average global equilibrium temperature be measured to within, say, half of one degree Celsius? You are affirmatively claiming that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature can be measured/computed to within, say, half of one degree Celsius, right? Great! Lay it on us. Tell us the recipe.

By the way, you claim that thientithts and researchers currently use sophisticated "sufficiently accurate" IR sensors to measure earth's average global equilibrium temperature. For that to be possible, the sensor would have to be far more accurate than a mere ±1.5% at 20cm or ±38.25% at 5m. It would have to be ±0.29% all the way to earth, over 100 miles, *and* it would only work when the spot being measured is -100∘C or colder. If the spot being measured happens to be 30C (86F, 303.15 Kelvin) then the sensor must have an accuracy of ±0.165% all the way down to earth, and even then, you would only have the temperature of that one, single, tiny spot on the earth.

Your takeaways:

* There is no such IR sensor technology with that kind of advanced Star Trek accuracy; you are discussing science fiction as though it were thettled thienth.
* One thousand of such hypothetical satellites working in tandem would take too long to cover the entire earth and prevent timing/delay error to totally kill your desired accuracy of half of one degree Clesius. In fact, that alone would add more than ±5∘C to your resulting margin of error.

This whole discussion reminds me of what a conversation with RFK jr. would be like. Anyone can create doubt about anything. There are still people who believe the Earth is flat or COVID lockdowns were part of some grand conspiracy to test society's willingness to obey Marshall Law-type orders or, in the case of RFK, vaccines cause autism and 5G cell signals cause cancer.

 

[Into the Night]

Based on what? Link?

RQAA.
Mathematics doesn't need a link. You just want to deny it again.

 

[Into the Night]

Based on what?

RQAA.

When you have scientists from around the world studying climate change,

Climate cannot change. There is nothing to study. You don't get to speak for all scientists. Omniscience fallacy. 'Climatologists' are not scientists since they deny science just as you do. They also deny mathematics just as you do.

CO2 and global temperatures independently,

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

yet they all come up with the same result,

'They' are just believers in the Church of Global Warming cult the same as you.

are we to believe that nobody has pointed out to them that what they're doing can't be done?

People have.

Satellite measurements are used for confirmation of rising temperatures.

Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. Base rate fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

The temperature stations are the primary tool for measuring global temperatures.

Nowhere near enough thermometers. Math errors: Failure to produce 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.

I don't know how the information collected from satellites, which is then fed into super-computers, confirms their beliefs.

Satellite data is not fed into super-computers. It's fine just by itself. Satellites are incapable of measuring absolute temperature. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It can't be measured.

The science community

Science isn't a 'community'.

prides itself on proving each other wrong.

Science has no proofs.

That's why you have peer reviewing

Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.

and a reluctance to use the term "fact" even when all signs point in one direction.

Learn what 'fact' means. It does not mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'.

Even scientists who talk about climate change

Climate cannot change.

now use terms like "high probability".

Math errors: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX. Now you are not only denying statistical math, you are denying probability math as well. Attempt to predict using probability math.

When talking about temperature increases,

What 'temperature increases'?

temperatures are tracked beginning in 1880.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

That isn't a random number

You are claiming random numbers as 'data'.

that the science community

Science isn't a 'community'.

pulled out of their collective ass.

Science has no ass to pull anything out of.

It was picked because that's when there were enough temperature measuring stations to have an accurate picture of historical temperature.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Again, this isn't only NOAA or only NASA or only UB Berkeley.

I know. It's also the IPCC, various EU agencies, and of course, the Church of Global Warming.

This is many countries, independently studying all available information, and agreeing.

There is no information.

It's also not just temperature measurements.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth.

They look at flowering dates of plants,

Plants have no temperature sensors.

nesting and hatching dates of birds.

Hasn't changed. BTW, Emperor penguins nest THROUGH WINTER! They nurture their egg on their feet to keep it from getting cold.

It's all combined to get an accurate picture.

Birds do not measure temperature. Plants do not measure temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

This whole discussion reminds me of what a conversation with RFK jr. would be like. Anyone can create doubt about anything. There are still people who believe the Earth is flat or COVID lockdowns were part of some grand conspiracy to test society's willingness to obey Marshall Law-type orders or, in the case of RFK, vaccines cause autism and 5G cell signals cause cancer.

You are describing yourself. It is YOU making rash, doomsday statements, like 5G cell signals causing cancer.

The Church of Global Warming IS a conspiracy. So is the Democrat party. Pivot fallacies.


You seem to have lot of confusions going on here. Most of them are caused simply by your lack of understanding English, but you also seem to be illiterate in mathematics and science.
Science isn't mathematics. Mathematics is not science. Neither is scientists. Science has no religion, no voting bloc, no consensus, no community, no politics, and is not mathematics. Mathematics has no religion, no voting bloc, no consensus, no community, no politics, and is not science.

The Church of Global warming denies science and mathematics. Specifically, it denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It also denies statistical, probability, and random number mathematics. No theory of science can be proven True. Mathematics DOES have proofs, but only to extend mathematics itself. Both probability mathematics and statistical mathematics import random numbers, which removes the natural predictive capability of mathematics. Thus, neither statistical mathematics nor probability mathematics has ANY ability to predict anything.

You still do not even know what 'heat' is, what light is, or what thermal energy is. You have so far yourself denied quantum mechanics, Rutherford's law, the ideal gas law, Planck's laws, and the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You seem to think that you can vote your way around these laws you deny. You seem to think you can vote your way around mathematics as well.

You also try to speak for everybody. You can't. You can only speak for you.

You also seem to think satellites are magick. They aren't. You also seem to think that a super-computer is magick. It isn't. Satellite data does not need super-computers.
You also seem to think a Holy Link is magick or some kind of 'proof'. They aren't. There is more to life than websites. A lot more.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA.
Mathematics doesn't need a link. You just want to deny it again.

If you're going to claim to have better knowledge of mathematics and laws of physics, than all the scientists studying climate change/global temperatures, I'm gonna need more than "because I said so".

Try again...

 

[IBDaMann]

Based on what?

Write in complete sentences. I have no idea about what you are asking.

When you have scientists from around the world studying climate change,

There are no scientists studying your religion.

CO2

CO2 is not being studied. Everything there is to know about CO2 has been documented. Nobody is somehow studying it.

and global temperatures independently,

Nobody has ever measured/calculated the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to any usable accuracy. There are no "global temperatures" that anyone is studying. This is why you have never seen the "The Data" because it's all an urban legend for the consumption of your congregation. If there were a dataset that would put the whole issue to rest in favor of Global Warming, the IPCC would clearly label it, neatly package it, and place it on a server for public download, ... and half the websites on the internet would point to it. However, if I were to ask you for this dataset right now, you would only be able to offer lame excuses, knowing that no such data exists.

As such, you well know that no one is studying "global temperatures" and that no one has ever measured the earth's global average equilibrium temperature.

Satellite measurements are used for confirmation of rising temperatures.

Nope. Can't be done and I know that you know this because you EVADE my requests for you to describe how you think it might be done.

The temperature stations are the primary tool for measuring global temperatures.

There aren't nearly enough to get a measure within a usable accuracy. In fact, there are orders of magnitude too few.

I don't know how the information collected from satellites,

Don't worry, there aren't any satellites capturing absolute temperature values for the reasons I have detailed.

... which is then fed into super-computers,

Big deal.

... confirms their beliefs.

Nope. They alter any data and fabricate any data necessary in order to make it align with their narratives. However, paying for computer time is costly, and it is free to just fabricate desired results.

The science community prides itself on proving each other wrong.

Religious communities confirm their own consensuses and their own biases.

That's why you have peer reviewing

Nope. "Peer review" has nothing to do with science. It's a publishing term. Nobody owns science and nobody's permission or approval is required for science to be created. In religion, however, everything must have buy-in and approval from all the right people. Global Warming and Climate Change are such religions with strict "peer review" policies for anyone to speak/write publicly on matters of the faith. Science, on the other hand, has no "peer review."

Even scientists who talk about climate change now use terms like "high probability".

They aren't scientists. Science doesn't deal in probability. Science predicts nature; it doesn't guess and it doesn't suggest.

When talking about temperature increases, temperatures are tracked beginning in 1880.

There still aren't any "global temperatures" of any usable accuracy, and those are needed in order to tell whether such temperatures are increasing, decreasing or remaining the same.

That isn't a random number that the science community pulled out of their collective ass.

Your commentary about the science community is coming directly out of your ass. When you want to know about the "science community," you should ask me. As it stands, I recognize all your booooolsch't.

It was picked because that's when there were enough temperature measuring stations to have an accurate picture of historical temperature.

Nope ... and you just gave away your mathematical incompetence.

Again, this isn't only NOAA or only NASA or only UB Berkeley.

What do any of these have to do with science?

This is many countries, independently studying all available information, and agreeing.

Problem: You do not speak for any of them, nor do any of them have any desire for you to speak for them.

It's also not just temperature measurements. They look at [proxy measures]

This is your tell tale sign that Climate Change and Global Warming are nothing but WACKY religions. Proxy measures are absolutely prohibited in science. Religions, on the other hand, eagerly look for "signs," "omens," "divine indications," "prophesies," etc ... These are not science. They accomplish nothing more than to create a special class of clergy who are the only ones qualified to "read" the omens/signs and tell you what to believe. This is not permitted in science. You should know this by now.

Anyone can create doubt about anything.

This is the fear of a theist who is about to lose his religion. Christians will remind you that the Devil can quote the Bible for his own ends. Science, on the other hand, requires doubting and questioning and more doubting and more questioning, all of the time. Your fear of doubting tells you that you have a profound faith in your religion and an extreme fear/HATRED of science (and math).

There are still people who believe the Earth is flat ...

Exactly. Those people are likely to also fall for the religious Climate Change and Global Warming hype of fear/PANIC.