Most of the past ten thousand years hotter than today.

[Bigdog]

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, the global atmospheric CO2 concentration, or the global atmospheric dust concentration.
Argument from randU fallacies.

Math errors are not science.

It is possible to estimate them using the records we have.

 

[Into the Night]

I do believe that temperature is the most difficult property to measure, and the best we can do is estimates.

Nope. The margin of error value is too high. Any such statement is just a random number of type randU. It is made up in someone's head.

And I believe that the ocean total heat content

No such thing. Heat is not contained in anything.

has even more unknowns and is tremendously fudged.

Making up numbers is not fudging. It is making up numbers.

Furthermore, comparing proxy data

Science does not use any proxy data for a reason. It too is based on assumption of meaning. It is literally assigning a value to a perceived meaning out of the blue...just another form of guessing.

to instrument data is unscientific.

Science is not data. Data is the result of observations. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not any measurement, or any set of data. It has no proofs. It is not possible to prove any theory True. It makes no assumptions. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both must be falsified. No theory of any kind may be based on a fallacy.

Climate science

There is no branch of science called 'climate'. There is no such thing as 'climate science'.

is very poorly understood, contrary to popular leftist propaganda.

The term is a meaningless buzzword entirely created by leftist propaganda (in the form of the Church of Global Warming) to rename 'global warming' into something less overused. There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate cannot change either. There is no value associated with climate. There is nothing that can change. A marine climate is always a marine climate, for example. 'Climate' is a subjective description only. It has no value associated with it.

However we do measure the temps of other planets and moons, where we use planet temp averages and ranges.

Not possible. Just as it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, it is not possible to measure the temperature of any planet or moon.

 

[Bigdog]

This thread is covered in Bird and Dog Shit!

Hilarious Shit though!

And now we got ... Lizard shit

 

[Into the Night]

It is possible to estimate them using the records we have.

There are no records. None. Zero. Zilch. Nan. Nada. THERE ARE NO RECORDS.

 

[moon]

Into the Night Soil

It is unknown whether Earth had any ice ages at all.

I really don't see what pleasure peeps get out of engaging with this moronic freak.



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

 

[moon]

.....such as???????!?

Such as Dutch Uncle's mummified Jewish cavemen with sunburn, dumbass


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

 

[Bigdog]

Nope. The margin of error value is too high. Any such statement is just a random number of type randU. It is made up in someone's head.

No such thing. Heat is not contained in anything.

Making up numbers is not fudging. It is making up numbers.

Science does not use any proxy data for a reason. It too is based on assumption of meaning. It is literally assigning a value to a perceived meaning out of the blue...just another form of guessing.

Science is not data. Data is the result of observations. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not any measurement, or any set of data. It has no proofs. It is not possible to prove any theory True. It makes no assumptions. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. One or both must be falsified. No theory of any kind may be based on a fallacy.

Climate science

is very poorly understood, contrary to popular leftist propaganda.

Observation is part of science.

Heat? Fine, I'll use the term thermal energy instead.

Fudging implies intentional deceit.

And you have not proved that the records are random numbers.

 

[Into the Night]

Such as Dutch Uncle's mummified Jewish cavemen with sunburn, dumbass


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

Ignoring your statement to throw yet another insult??? Lame...even if the insult is directed at Dutch (who tends to deserve them).

 

[Bigdog]

Actually, this too is a religion. It is unknown whether Earth had any ice ages at all. It is not possible to describe a 'warming' or 'cooling' without measuring the temperature of the Earth twice. To do so creates what is called a base rate fallacy.

You don't know the base rate, so you don't know if there is a fallacy.

 

[Bigdog]

Light is not heat. Heat is not contained in anything. It doesn't 'transmit' to anywhere.

Photons are radiation. The heat is transferred when the light is absorbed, of course.

 

[Into the Night]

Climate science

Observation is part of science.

Nope. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not any observation or any data that comes an observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. That's it. No more. No less.

Among the theories you are discarding is the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. In other words, you cannot increase energy in any system without putting work into it. The mere presence of any gas or vapor is not work. You are literally attempting to create energy out of nothing.

Another is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a system) and 't' is time. In other words, you can NEVER reduce entropy. This law also defines what 'heat' is and that it can only flow in one direction, from hot (a concentration of energy) to cold (a relative void of energy). You can NEVER heat a warm object with a cold one. You can NEVER make heat flow 'uphill'. You are literally trying make heat flow backwards and thus reduce entropy.

Another one you are ignoring is the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant called 'emissivity' (which is also absorbtivity, according to Kirchoff's emissivity law), and 't' is temperature in deg K. You are literally trying to change this equation to introduce a frequency component.

Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Heat is not light. Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. While the Stefan-Boltzmann law does describe how thermal energy can be converted to light, that itself is not heat. It is ONLY heat if the resulting light is absorbed and converted back into thermal energy again. Only infrared light will convert to thermal energy. Visible light does not convert to thermal energy upon absorption. This is in accordance with Planck's laws.

Heat? Fine, I'll use the term thermal energy instead.

Fine. However, thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy.

Fudging implies intentional deceit.

Fudging implies there is data to fudge. There isn't any.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't know the base rate, so you don't know if there is a fallacy.

There is a fallacy because you have no base rate but you are trying to claim one.

 

[Bigdog]

There is a fallacy because you have no base rate but you are trying to claim one.

No, I acknowledge that there is no base rate.

A base rate fallacy requires that you know the base rate.

 

[Into the Night]

Photons are radiation.

Photons are a particle. They are not radiation. See Heisenberg's law.

The heat is transferred

Heat is not contained in anything. It is not transferable.

when the light is absorbed, of course.

Only certain frequencies of light will convert to thermal energy when absorbed. This is in the range of the infrared band and somewhat lower spectrum. No molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has.

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. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I acknowledge that there is no base rate.

A base rate fallacy requires that you know the base rate.

No, it doesn't. It requires that you are claiming a base rate when none exist.

If you are acknowledging there is no base rate, that means you are acknowledging there is no measurement of Earth's temperature.

If this is what you are acknowledging, than you would be correct. Any deviation results in the base rate fallacy.

 

[Bigdog]

Nope. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is not any observation or any data that comes an observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. That's it. No more. No less.

Among the theories you are discarding is the 1st law of thermodynamics, which states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. In other words, you cannot increase energy in any system without putting work into it. The mere presence of any gas or vapor is not work. You are literally attempting to create energy out of nothing.

Another is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a system) and 't' is time. In other words, you can NEVER reduce entropy. This law also defines what 'heat' is and that it can only flow in one direction, from hot (a concentration of energy) to cold (a relative void of energy). You can NEVER heat a warm object with a cold one. You can NEVER make heat flow 'uphill'. You are literally trying make heat flow backwards and thus reduce entropy.

Another one you are ignoring is the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which states: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant called 'emissivity' (which is also absorbtivity, according to Kirchoff's emissivity law), and 't' is temperature in deg K. You are literally trying to change this equation to introduce a frequency component.

Electromagnetic energy is not thermal energy. Heat is not light. Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is the movement of thermal energy. While the Stefan-Boltzmann law does describe how thermal energy can be converted to light, that itself is not heat. It is ONLY heat if the resulting light is absorbed and converted back into thermal energy again. Only infrared light will convert to thermal energy. Visible light does not convert to thermal energy upon absorption. This is in accordance with Planck's laws.


Fine. However, thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy.

Fudging implies there is data to fudge. There isn't any.

Obviously, Kirchoff's law preserves Stefan B and allows the 2nd of law of thermodynamics to not be broken.

In an isolated system, the exchange of heat between two radiant heat sources will eventually result in a temperature equilibrium between the two. Thus the 2nd law of Therm is preserved.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

There are no records. None. Zero. Zilch. Nan. Nada. THERE ARE NO RECORDS.

You tell em' BIRD BRAIN!

Tell em' you're not!- BUT EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD IS JUST WRONG AND STUPID!

 

[Bigdog]

No, it doesn't. It requires that you are claiming a base rate when none exist.

If you are acknowledging there is no base rate, that means you are acknowledging there is no measurement of Earth's temperature.

If this is what you are acknowledging, than you would be correct. Any deviation results in the base rate fallacy.

Without knowing the base rate, you can not prove there is a base rate fallacy. You are guessing.

 

[Yakuda]

At this point it couldn't possibly be more obvious that the way we produce and consume energy is not sustainable. The planet has given us dozens of warning signs over the past 2-3 decades.

The situation we are in - in terms of preserving our environment - is dire.

If the way we produce and consume energy is not sustainable then why is California going to ban gas vehicles while simultaneously telling people to use less electricity?

 

[Bigdog]

QUOTE=Into the Night;5292524]Photons are a particle. They are not radiation. See Heisenberg's law.

A photon is a type of radiation.