U.S. "Arctic Outbreak" this week signals the End of Global Warming

[moon]

The age of the Earth is unknown. There is, however, recorded history for 1000 years.

You mean vinyl and stuff ?


Haw, haw.................................haw, haw............................haw, haw, haw, haw...............................................haw.

 

[Into the Night]

You mean vinyl and stuff ?


Haw, haw.................................haw, haw............................haw, haw, haw, haw...............................................haw.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

 

[Into the Night]

Ignored yet again by the Church of Global Warming are the laws of thermodynamics:

1st law: E(t+1) = E(t) where 'E' is energy, and 't' is time. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

2nd law: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (available energy for work), and 't' is time. You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. You can't make heat flow 'backwards'.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is light radiated in watts, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant describing how well a surface absorbs and emits light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

You cannot stop any substance from radiating light.

You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.

 

[Bigdog]

Ignored yet again by the Church of Global Warming are the laws of thermodynamics:

1st law: E(t+1) = E(t) where 'E' is energy, and 't' is time. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

2nd law: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (available energy for work), and 't' is time. You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. You can't make heat flow 'backwards'.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is light radiated in watts, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant describing how well a surface absorbs and emits light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

You cannot stop any substance from radiating light.

You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.

Photons are not bound by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This allows infrared photons to transfer heat from a colder object to a warmer object.

 

[Into the Night]

Photons are not bound by the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Yes they are!

This allows infrared photons to transfer heat from a colder object to a warmer object.

You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
You cannot transfer heat.

 

[Bigdog]

Yes they are!

You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
You cannot transfer heat.

Photons are NOT heat, therefore they are NOT bound by the 2nd law of TD. Period.

 

[Into the Night]

Photons are NOT heat, therefore they are NOT bound by the 2nd law of TD. Period.

They are bound by all the laws of thermodynamics.

You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by convection, and you can't do it by radiance.

 

[Bigdog]

They are bound by all the laws of thermodynamics.

You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by convection, and you can't do it by radiance.

Wrong! Photons are NOT heat.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong! Photons are NOT heat.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

No matter how you try to twist it, you cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

 

[Bigdog]

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

No matter how you try to twist it, you cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

Then you will have no problem teaching all of us, proving to all of us that a photon IS heat.

It's NOT called the 2nd Law of Photons.

 

[christiefan915]

The hottest year on record globally was 2024.

It was certainly the hottest year on record for Pittsburgh.

 

[Into the Night]

Then you will have no problem teaching all of us, proving to all of us that a photon IS heat.

It's NOT called the 2nd Law of Photons.

You are still locked in your paradox. Playing word games will not resolve your paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

It was certainly the hottest year on record for Pittsburgh.

The hottest day at Pittsburgh airport was 103, recorded in 1988.

 

[Cypress]

It was certainly the hottest year on record for Pittsburgh.

The hottest day at Pittsburgh airport was 103, recorded in 1988.

She said year, not day Trump dummy.

 

[Cypress]

It was certainly the hottest year on record for Pittsburgh.

This has been going on for 20 years: every time there is a snow storm, MAGA morons bray that it's the end of global warming

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Here, you are ripping a page straight out of AProudLefty's playbook. "Ummmm, I never SAAAAAAID [those precise words] ... DERRR!!!!" Yet, the positions that you are taking fully rely upon the assumed truth of that premise. You even do it again in the very next assertion that you make.

You can't find where I said it so you deflect. How cute of you.

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

Here, you are assuming that Earth's temperature has been accurately measured ("multiple measurements" making up a valid data set that "an average of the temperature" can be calculated from). So, this brings us back to my question: How was Earth's temperature accurately measured? Accurate measurements of Earth's temperature are required in order to form a valid data set of Earth's temperature, and the existence of that valid data set is required in order to calculate an average temperature value from it.

No. I have not assumed the Earth's temperature is accurately measured. In fact every thermometer used could be off by 100 degrees. As long as they are consistently the same then a trend can be determined without knowing the exact temperature. I can use a mercury thermometer with a scale from 1 - 100 and not know what the temperature is but by taking measurements daily I can determine if it is getting warmer or cooler without ever knowing the temperature.

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

I guess I shouldn't have used we since you are too stupid to understand this. Next time instead of "we" I will use the phrase "anyone with an average or above intelligence."

Here, you are assuming that you know what Earth's emissivity is. You don't know what Earth's emissivity is. You also don't know what light is being emitted from Earth vs from other bodies such as the moon and the stars.

Wow. I guess you must think it is impossible to tell color temperature of anything that is emitting light.

Here, you aren't making any sense. Idk what you mean by "one earth's temperature". There IS a temperature for Earth at any given point in time, though.

There is not an earth's temperature at any given point. There is only an average temperature since different parts of the earth are different temperatures.

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

Here, you have made a statement so stupid that it will probably win a 'thooper thmart perthun award' of some sort at the end of this month. How are you visibly seeing that Earth has warmed by a fraction of a fraction of a degree Celsius over the last decade (as is commonly claimed by the Global Warming faith)?

You have been told this and are incapable of understanding how an average is calculated.

I also didn't know that you could somehow calculate an average without the existence of a valid data set. Please show me how you are calculating Earth's average temperature (for any time period of your choosing) without the existence of any valid data set for Earth's temperature.

Now you are arguing that thermometers don't work anywhere in the world.

I also just want to note how funny it is that you are making reference to something you call "the averages" as if it is some sort of holy entity.

Simple math is hardly a holy entity. It is math. Denying math would seem to be all you can come up with.

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

I guess I shouldn't have used we since you are too stupid to understand this. Next time instead of "we" I will use the phrase "anyone with an average or above intelligence."

Here, you are claiming that you can somehow visibly see the northern hemisphere's temperature increasing by a fraction of a fraction of a degree Celsius over the last decade (as is commonly claimed by the Global Warming faith).

Do you not understand how math works? It would appear not.

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

I guess I shouldn't have used we since you are too stupid to understand this. Next time instead of "we" I will use the phrase "anyone with an average or above intelligence."

Here, you are attempting to make a stupid point using poor grammar. The surface area of ice at a specific defined boundary being more or less at any given time doesn't mean that Earth's temperature (or a hemisphere's temperature) has increased or decreased. This gets into IBDaMann's brilliant synopsis of the Global Warming religion and how it is essentially just one great big giant "lie of omission". In this instance, you are honing in on some warming while omitting cooling.

Thanks for proving you don't actually live in WI. If you did you would understand how ice out works. What is the temperature at which ice forms? Did it change in the last 100 years?

Here, you are blaming other people for your own issues. You can't fix your own issues by blaming other people for them.

For a simplistic answer, assuming that by "average" you are referring to a calculated mean value (the most common type of average), and that you are utilizing a data set consisting of 10,000 total temperature readings (1 temperature reading per 1 thermometer location), all of them simultaneously taken by the same observer, then you would sum up the values of each temperature reading and then divide that sum by 10,000 (the total number of readings). That would yield a mean temperature value (the average) for all 10,000 specific thermometer locations at a specific moment in time.

You cannot, however, turn around and claim that the average reading of those 10,000 thermometer locations is somehow "Earth's temperature" at the specific moment in time. That gets into a whole host of other issues (including but not limited to: declaring a margin of error value at the outset, removing all known biases (such as location and time), using only raw data, declaring and justifying a variance value, and calculating a margin of error value).

I never claimed that the average of those thermometers is somehow the earth's temperature. That is your continuous strawman that you are flailing against.

Let's see if you understand the answer to your first question before moving onto this question.

When you understand how to calculate an average, get back to me. Or rather you can get back to anyone with an average or above intelligence.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Here, you are ripping a page straight out of AProudLefty's playbook. "Ummmm, I never SAAAAAAID [those precise words] ... DERRR!!!!" Yet, the positions that you are taking fully rely upon the assumed truth of that premise. You even do it again in the very next assertion that you make.

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

Here, you are assuming that Earth's temperature has been accurately measured ("multiple measurements" making up a valid data set that "an average of the temperature" can be calculated from). So, this brings us back to my question: How was Earth's temperature accurately measured? Accurate measurements of Earth's temperature are required in order to form a valid data set of Earth's temperature, and the existence of that valid data set is required in order to calculate an average temperature value from it.

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

Here, you are assuming that you know what Earth's emissivity is. You don't know what Earth's emissivity is. You also don't know what light is being emitted from Earth vs from other bodies such as the moon and the stars.

Here, you aren't making any sense. Idk what you mean by "one earth's temperature". There IS a temperature for Earth at any given point in time, though.

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

Here, you have made a statement so stupid that it will probably win a 'thooper thmart perthun award' of some sort at the end of this month. How are you visibly seeing that Earth has warmed by a fraction of a fraction of a degree Celsius over the last decade (as is commonly claimed by the Global Warming faith)?

I also didn't know that you could somehow calculate an average without the existence of a valid data set. Please show me how you are calculating Earth's average temperature (for any time period of your choosing) without the existence of any valid data set for Earth's temperature.

I also just want to note how funny it is that you are making reference to something you call "the averages" as if it is some sort of holy entity.

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

Here, you are claiming that you can somehow visibly see the northern hemisphere's temperature increasing by a fraction of a fraction of a degree Celsius over the last decade (as is commonly claimed by the Global Warming faith).

^^ Here, the Marxist "We" rears its ugly head again. Poor Richard Saunders has to pretend that he is speaking for a large group of unnamed people instead of just speaking for himself.

Here, you are attempting to make a stupid point using poor grammar. The surface area of ice at a specific defined boundary being more or less at any given time doesn't mean that Earth's temperature (or a hemisphere's temperature) has increased or decreased. This gets into IBDaMann's brilliant synopsis of the Global Warming religion and how it is essentially just one great big giant "lie of omission". In this instance, you are honing in on some warming while omitting cooling.

Here, you are blaming other people for your own issues. You can't fix your own issues by blaming other people for them.

For a simplistic answer, assuming that by "average" you are referring to a calculated mean value (the most common type of average), and that you are utilizing a data set consisting of 10,000 total temperature readings (1 temperature reading per 1 thermometer location), all of them simultaneously taken by the same observer, then you would sum up the values of each temperature reading and then divide that sum by 10,000 (the total number of readings). That would yield a mean temperature value (the average) for all 10,000 specific thermometer locations at a specific moment in time.

You cannot, however, turn around and claim that the average reading of those 10,000 thermometer locations is somehow "Earth's temperature" at the specific moment in time. That gets into a whole host of other issues (including but not limited to: declaring a margin of error value at the outset, removing all known biases (such as location and time), using only raw data, declaring and justifying a variance value, and calculating a margin of error value).

Let's see if you understand the answer to your first question before moving onto this question.

^^^
Aweseome manifesto!

 

[Into the Night]

She said year, not day Trump dummy.

There is no temperature for a year, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

This has been going on for 20 years: every time there is a snow storm, MAGA morons bray that it's the end of global warming

What global warming??? No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

You can't find where I said it so you deflect. How cute of you.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

No. I have not assumed the Earth's temperature is accurately measured.

Yes you have! DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

In fact every thermometer used could be off by 100 degrees. As long as they are consistently the same then a trend can be determined without knowing the exact temperature.

Base rate fallacy.

I can use a mercury thermometer with a scale from 1 - 100 and not know what the temperature is but by taking measurements daily I can determine if it is getting warmer or cooler without ever knowing the temperature.

Base rate fallacy.

I guess I shouldn't have used we since you are too stupid to understand this. Next time instead of "we" I will use the phrase "anyone with an average or above intelligence."

Mantra 1a.

Wow. I guess you must think it is impossible to tell color temperature of anything that is emitting light.

Temperature isn't a color.

There is not an earth's temperature at any given point.

Yet you say there is. Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

There is only an average temperature since different parts of the earth are different temperatures.

Paradox.

You have been told this and are incapable of understanding how an average is calculated.

Paradox. Math errors: Failure to provide unbaised 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.

Logic errors: Void argument fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.

Now you are arguing that thermometers don't work anywhere in the world.

Mantra 30a. He never said any such thing.

Simple math is hardly a holy entity. It is math. Denying math would seem to be all you can come up with.

You are ignoring statistical mathematics.

I guess I shouldn't have used we since you are too stupid to understand this. Next time instead of "we" I will use the phrase "anyone with an average or above intelligence."

Mantra 1a.

Do you not understand how math works? It would appear not.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

I guess I shouldn't have used we since you are too stupid to understand this. Next time instead of "we" I will use the phrase "anyone with an average or above intelligence."

Mantra 1a.

Thanks for proving you don't actually live in WI.

He does.

If you did you would understand how ice out works. What is the temperature at which ice forms?

Depends on pressure and the salinity and agitation of the water. It is quite possible to supercool water and not have it freeze, and it's quite possible to get ice at room temperature.

Did it change in the last 100 years?

You obviously are not aware of the characteristics of water.

I never claimed that the average of those thermometers is somehow the earth's temperature.

Blatant lie. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

That is your continuous strawman that you are flailing against.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS! Fallacy fallacy.

When you understand how to calculate an average, get back to me. Or rather you can get back to anyone with an average or above intelligence.

Math errors: Failure to provide unbiased raw data. Failure to selecct by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error.