Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 186

Thread: Climate strike: UK school pupils take part in call for urgent action

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    I don't believe you.


    Seems like you're appealing to a false authority.

    Satellites don't measure absolute temperature; they measure light. They are good with relative temperatures, but not absolute temperatures, such as what thermometers read. Light readings cannot be converted to temperature readings via stefan boltzmann, since the emissivity of Earth is unknown. To know emissivity of Earth, we would need to already know what we are trying to figure out, which is what the global temperature is... Chicken and egg problem at it's finest...
    Hardly, Roy Spencer is responsible for the UAH satellite temperature dataset. If you think that satellites cannot measure temperature then you'll have to explain why the data received corresponds so well with radiosondes in weather balloons.

    As to emissivity ε = 0.78. This is the kind of value you'd expect from a grey body like the Earth.

  2. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello gfm7175,

    Rut roh. Another long detailed post maker. We are sick, you know. We are so out of place in this sound byte world.
    I break out each argument and address it directly. If you wish my responses to be shorter, then make less arguments at one time...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I don't recall ever arguing that we had a means to measure global temperature.
    You seem to know of a way to do so, since you argue that the Earth is warming. In order to know that, you need to know what the global temperature is...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I am not a scientist. I'll leave those things up to the experts.
    I won't... I don't trust them. Many "climate scientists" are anything BUT, since they deny current laws of science...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I don't see why the main stream news has any reason to present a massive (almost impossibly so) hoax to the world.
    Argument From Ignorance.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I believe what they say.
    I don't. They deny logic, science, and mathematics.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    The Earth is warming.
    HOW do you KNOW this? You have admitted that we currently do not have the means to measure global temperature accurately...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Heck. For all I know they could not be trying to pick a single number for the temperature of the Earth.
    They are not following the axioms of statistical mathematics... Without doing so, whatever number(s) they come up with are random, guesswork, meaningless, etc... (for starters, due to their location and time biases)

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Maybe all they are doing is using data from existing thermometers and noticing trends - such as lots of the readings rising gradually over time.
    See above. They need to follow statistical mathematics or else they are not going to get anywhere NEAR an accurate result. --- San Francisco says nothing about Atlanta, which says nothing about Tokyo, which says nothing about Copenhagen, which says nothing about some completely remote area in the middle of Antarctica... A thermometer in San Francisco doesn't measure the whole Earth...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    That's where we differ. I am not predicting anything.
    Yes, you are. You are predicting that something bad is going to happen if no action is taken to prevent it. It is classic Pascal's Wager...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and working from the premise that we don't know what is going to happen in the future.
    Then why are you latching onto the idea that something bad is going to happen, even though logic, science, and mathematics say otherwise??

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    We have two indicated possibilities and two possible ways to proceed. We can take measures to be prepared in case of the worst case, or we can hope for the best case and do nothing.
    False Dichotomy Fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Most of us see that as an unnecessary risk.
    Made up numbers... Pascal's Wager...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    It is unwise to incur any risk when there is little to be gained and so much to be lost. That would be foolish.
    Pascal's Wager... Have you converted to Christianity yet by any chance?? It would be unwise to risk eternal damnation in hell, now wouldn't it??

    Why does this apply to the Church of Global Warming but not to Christianity or any other religion or "risky endeavor"??

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    We want our bases covered no matter what happens.
    Impossible. You don't know everything that could possibly happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    It has nothing to do with Pascal, and everything to do with being wise and doing the smart thing at this point in time, given what we know.
    It has EVERYTHING to do with Pascal, since you are arguing for Pascal's Wager...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I understand you are so sure you are right, and you see some big downside to this, that you strongly object to going along with the rest of the world. That's fine. You are entitled to your view. But when it depends on incorrectly assuming that I am predicting anything, then I know it's based on an incorrect assumption. I am not predicting anything.
    I am simply adhering to logic, science, and mathematics... The "rest of the world" bit of yours is an argument from randU fallacy doubling as an appeal to the masses fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Pointless, because then you've turned it into something else. I can't be held responsible for something you copied and doctored up.

    Irrelevant. Has nothing to do with the discussion. Hello. We are talking about what may or may not be happening to the planet and what to do about it.
    It has EVERYTHING to do with this discussion... You have advocated FOR Pascal's Wager with regard to the Church of Global Warming... Why not for Christianity or Muslim or any other religion or "risky endeavor"?? You don't seem to be following your own advice... Have you become a Christian yet? You risk eternal damnation in hell if you don't convert straight-away!!! You have little to lose and EVERYTHING to gain if you convert... Wouldn't it be SMART of you to do so?

    See why your Pascal's Wager based argument for "taking action" to combat "global warming" falls flat on its face??

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    My approach is logic based also. It is illogical to take any risk which is not necessary, especially where there is so very much at risk.
    More Pascal's Wager... already addressed...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Sounds like a semantic argument.
    Not at all. Words cannot be circularly defined. They MUST be defined by something else. To define "global warming" as "a worldwide increase in temperature" is meaningless, since one would simply be restating the words 'global warming'... The term needs to be properly defined...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Incorrect. I have never heard the main stream news claim that the reports of global warming create energy out of nothing. If we could have energy from nothing, we would not need to generate so much CO2 trying to get energy.
    Anyone who argues for the Magick Bouncing Photon Argument is arguing this.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Since the Earth is not symmetrical, nor is land evenly distributed, there is no easy formula for the optimal distribution of thermometers.
    Yet, you know that the Earth is warming??

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Your argument here is to impose an impossible condition for the other case, and then claim it is impossible, so you don't believe the results.
    No, my argument is to follow the axioms of statistical mathematics to even BEGIN a statistical analysis rather than to just pull random numbers out of my ass...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    You are entitled to your own view, but scientists are going to use what data they have, and they will reach their conclusions completely independently of your input.
    They are using temperature readings that are heavily influenced by location and time biases. Like I said, San Fran says nothing about Atlanta, and etc...

    Did you know that temperatures can vary by as much as 20deg F per MILE and 49deg F per TWO MINUTES?? THAT'S why we would need well over 200 million uniformly spaced and simultaneously read thermometers to even BEGIN a statistical analysis of global temperatures... The "data they have" is nothing more than random guesswork.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    If they are confident in their determination, I would believe them, the ones reported in the main stream news, as the more reliable information; over the posting of an eloquent anonymous poster on an internet chat site. To me, that is logical.
    That would be committing the Bulverism Fallacy... You are dismissing my arguments because I am the one who is making them...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Now you are imposing a requirement of proof. Nothing need be proven before precautions are taken. When a hurricane comes ashore, nobody stands there on the beach in a glass house saying: 'No need to worry - it is not proven that the hurricane will hit here." That person would be technically correct in saying so. That would also be an idiot. No. The wise thing to do is to take precautions. Wisdom says: Hope for the best case, but prepare for the worst case. Sure, it might cost a little bit to be prepared but that is like insurance against the possible losses should the worst case occur.
    The 'requirement of proof' was already there from the very moment that you asserted that the Earth IS warming... YOU need to SHOW that it is indeed warming... You have yet to do so... Your whole argument has essentially been Pascal's Wager, which you continue in this portion of your response (and even more below)...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I'm sure you feel it is rational. You've explained why you feel that way. I understand your reasoning. I simply disagree with it.
    You are disagreeing with logic, science, and mathematics, all for the cause of your circularly-defined buzzword religion...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I keep reverting back to that basic logic that it is not wise to take an unnecessary great risk where there is little to be gained. And no reason to take that foolish risk. What do we have to gain by doing nothing and hoping for the best case? I don't see the up side here. Really. What's to be gained? The changes we want to make are not going to destroy our lives or cost us a lot of money. That has not been shown. We are trying to save lives here.
    Yes, you keep reverting back to Pascal's Wager... That's all you seem to have as far as argumentation for your "the Earth is warming" position goes...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    And the result could very well mean much cleaner, more reliable energy at a lower cost.
    We already have reliable and cheap energy... It is called coal, it is called oil, it is called natural gas... even hydro in some areas where it is quite feasible... Wind and solar are both expensive and inefficient...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    That would be expecting perfection in an imperfect world.
    No, that would be expecting the axioms of statistical mathematics to be followed in order to BEGIN to perform a proper statistical analysis...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    If true, this is all you need. You've got us. Why even go into all that other stuff? In the words of a wise salesman, once you've made the sale, shut up.
    Yes, it IS all I need... I don't need the other arguments... But people tend to argue this issue from different angles, so I have a counterargument for each angle they wish to bring up.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Well, the reason, of course, that you have so many other convincing points, and don't simply rely on this one particular one, is that you know this isn't 'IT.' But the fact that you've chosen to augment your argument with this desperate diversion is that you know this alone isn't enough, and you also know that the rest of it doesn't really do the trick either, does it?
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    How many times have you presented this overwhelming all-the-bases-covered approach in chat rooms?
    Many times.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Has it *ever* worked? Have you *ever* convinced someone who believes the main stream news media when they say we are headed toward human caused global warming to change their mind and reject the main stream news?
    Who knows... I am not a mindreader...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Maybe people who don't share your predetermined conclusion are just not buying it. Maybe the real reason you've gone to this great length is not to convince anybody else, but to convince yourself.
    Inversion Fallacy. Bulverism Fallacy.

    I've come to my conclusion through use of logic, science, and mathematics... You have come to your conclusion through use of religion (coupled with the denial of logic, science, and mathematics).

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Bears may be hanging in there for now but the planet is losing ice.
    Bears are fine... ice is fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    The Earth is warming,
    HOW do you KNOW this, since you admit that we don't have the means to accurately measure global temperature??

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    and we can do something about it if we act now.
    Pascal's Wager Fallacy... Do WHAT about it?? Act in WHAT way?? What's the plan, Stan? Where's your data showing a global temperature increase? Where's your definition for global warming?? You have nothing...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    We can make the inevitable changes less drastic if we take smart measures now.
    Welcome to Paradox City, Home of Irrationality!!! Earlier, you said that you "weren't making any predictions"... NOW, you ARE (by saying that these changes are happening and are inevitable)... Which is it?

    [1] I am not predicting anything.
    [2] Inevitable changes are happening, and will be much more drastic if we "do nothing".

    Which is it? You need to clear your paradox...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    I don't recall trying to argue that the entire Earth had just one climate. But I am seeing how you like to invent straw men.
    Anyone who is claiming that the Earth (as a whole) has a climate is claiming this... Any reference to a "global climate" is claiming this...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Just more of your creative deflections of anything that does not support your predetermined conclusion.
    Inversion Fallacy. YOU have the "predetermined conclusion", due to your religious fundamentalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Look. I am willing to approach this from a neutral position.
    You haven't done so. You continue to chant your religious incantations rather than directly address the logic, math, and science issues regarding global warming...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    We have two indicated possibilities and two possible ways to proceed. Your position is that there is only one possibility. You've already ruled out my entire argument before we begin discussing how we should proceed. You're claiming to be perfect here, claiming that there is no possibility that you could be wrong, that you are all-knowing and therefore we should listen to you and do it your way.
    Nothing of the sort... I have simply appealed to logic, science, and mathematics. You are sticking with your fundamentalist religious beliefs and denying those things.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    That is not reasonable. It is fallible We are both humans. (At least I hope so. If that's not the case then I win the argument by default) Humans make mistakes. The logical approach is to begin the discussion on the premise that either possibility can exist. Either nothing is happening and we then need take no precautions, or something is happening and we should do what we can to prepare.
    This is affected by your aforementioned paradox... You aren't beginning with the possibility that nothing is happening... You said earlier that these "inevitable changes" ARE happening, and will be much more drastic if we "do nothing"... You have put yourself into a tangled web of irrationality at this point... You need to clear your paradox...

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    If we can agree on reasonable precautions for the possibility that something might really be happening, then it becomes a basic logical no brainer to take those precautions because that eliminates any risk. And the risk is actually quite great, so it is very wise to take a course of action which rules it out.
    Continued irrationality... Continued Pascal's Wager Fallacy...

  3. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Hardly, Roy Spencer is responsible for the UAH satellite temperature dataset.
    Okay.

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    If you think that satellites cannot measure temperature
    They can't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    then you'll have to explain why the data received corresponds so well with radiosondes in weather balloons.
    I don't have to explain anything. You have to explain precisely how satellites measure temperature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    As to emissivity ε = 0.78. This is the kind of value you'd expect from a grey body like the Earth.
    So the Earth's emissivity is 0.78?? How did you determine that??

  4. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    44,908
    Thanks
    9,713
    Thanked 7,400 Times in 5,849 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 6,397 Times in 6,144 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    gfm7175;
    I have simply appealed to logic, science, and mathematics.
    Untrue. You've actually announced that the earth has no climate . That's an appeal to ignorance.
    " First they came for the journalists...
    We don't know what happened after that . "

    Maria Ressa.

  5. #65 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Okay.


    They can't.


    I don't have to explain anything. You have to explain precisely how satellites measure temperature.


    So the Earth's emissivity is 0.78?? How did you determine that??
    Satellites measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. I am not sure why you're not aware of that already.


    Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The intensity of the signals these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies is directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of fifteen instruments flying on different satellites over the years. A discussion of the latest version (6.0) of the dataset is located here.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/



    Regarding the value of ϵ that is explained in great detail here. This assumes that the energy balance have the precise values: ε = 0.78; Tp = 288.2 K; Ta = 242.4 K.

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...ayermodel.html
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 03-20-2019 at 04:08 PM.

  6. #66 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Satellites measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. I am not sure why you're not aware of that already.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
    Copy and pasted from Dr Roy Spencer... You seem to treat this guy like he is a god...

    Satellites don't measure absolute temperature. They make use of thermal imaging cameras, and then attempt to convert that light reading into a temperature. The main issue with that is that the emissivity of Earth is unknown. Any temperature value resulting from that is a guess at best... In order to accurately measure temperature that way, we would need to already know the temperature of the Earth. Chicken and Egg...

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Regarding the value of ϵ that is explained in great detail here. This assumes that the energy balance have the precise values: ε = 0.78; Tp = 288.2 K; Ta = 242.4 K.
    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/c...ayermodel.html
    I'm not going to read through all that. Care to form your own argument?

    I asked "how did you determine Earth's emissivity?" and you said "...this ASSUMES..." So, in other words, we don't know for sure what Earth's emissivity is??

  7. #67 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Copy and pasted from Dr Roy Spencer... You seem to treat this guy like he is a god...

    Satellites don't measure absolute temperature. They make use of thermal imaging cameras, and then attempt to convert that light reading into a temperature. The main issue with that is that the emissivity of Earth is unknown. Any temperature value resulting from that is a guess at best... In order to accurately measure temperature that way, we would need to already know the temperature of the Earth. Chicken and Egg...



    I'm not going to read through all that. Care to form your own argument?

    I asked "how did you determine Earth's emissivity?" and you said "...this ASSUMES..." So, in other words, we don't know for sure what Earth's emissivity is??
    It is self evident to me that you're incapable of understanding the basic science. I don't have the patience to help you to be honest. Satellites don't measure light ffs, they measure microwave emissions from atmospheric oxygen.

  8. #68 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    It is self evident to me that you're incapable of understanding the basic science.
    I typically refer to this as the 'you don't understand' mantra, and I typically dismiss this mantra on sight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    I don't have the patience to help you to be honest.
    It seems that you have very little patience then... Oh well...

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Satellites don't measure light ffs, they measure microwave emissions from atmospheric oxygen.
    And that IS light... not within the visible spectrum, but still light nonetheless...

    Satellites aren't gods... They have limitations... One of those limitations is that they cannot measure absolute temperature...

  9. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    gfm7175;

    Untrue. You've actually announced that the earth has no climate . That's an appeal to ignorance.
    It doesn't have a climate. It has NUMEROUS climates... Climate depends on the location... Climate refers to a locality, not the whole globe...

    Unless you're referring to Climate as "the goddess who oversees all weather" (and administration of it and etc...)

  10. #70 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    44,908
    Thanks
    9,713
    Thanked 7,400 Times in 5,849 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 6,397 Times in 6,144 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    It doesn't have a climate. It has NUMEROUS climates... Climate depends on the location... Climate refers to a locality, not the whole globe...
    That's incorrect. See post #59. Global climate is a reality- whether you accept it or not.
    " First they came for the journalists...
    We don't know what happened after that . "

    Maria Ressa.

  11. #71 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    That's incorrect. See post #59. Global climate is a reality- whether you accept it or not.
    Sorry, I missed your post #59. I will respond to that post now...

  12. #72 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,842
    Thanks
    6,488
    Thanked 3,781 Times in 3,068 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    gfm7175;
    Sure it does.
    No, the Earth as a whole does not have a climate. What is its climate? Is it hot and arid? Is it cool and wet?? Etc. etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    Regions have climates- described by the average of conditions there- and the climate of the earth as a whole is also described by the average of its parts.
    There is no climate for a 'region' such as a country or a continent, either... Climate is very localized. Madison, WI has a climate... Seattle, WA has a climate... The USA does NOT have a climate just like Earth does not have a climate. How would one even calculate an "average of conditions"?? We don't have near enough thermometers to even begin an accurate statistical analysis of what the temperature of Earth is... Right now, it is very wet in the Madison, WI area. We just got done experiencing record levels of flooding (at the location of my residence, anyhow...) Much of Australia, on the other hand, has been experiencing drought conditions. So, is the Earth super wet or super dry??

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    Just because it isn't described in regional terms does not preclude its holistic existence. You should think about this before charging onwards under your banner of denial.
    'Denier' mantra dismissed on sight.

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    For other readers- standing back from the earth, viewing it from the moon, say- the earth climate can be seen in non-regional terms, the colors of the oceans and land-masses, the ice-masses, the colors and movements of the atmosphere. Sure, we're viewing its climate in terms of geological time - but it's a climate none-the-less. Quite obviously, that overall earth-view will change according to the higher temperatures of global warming. That's global climate-change.
    There is no "global climate"... Climate is a localized term, not a wide-sweeping one... Weather is different all across the globe at any particular moment of time...

    It is impossible to measure a global temperature. We don't have NEAR enough thermometers to even BEGIN such a statistical analysis...

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    When these kids march in protest they are protesting all over the earth because their modern education has instilled in them that they are all inter-dependent upon each other.
    Public education is a prime example of Communism in action...

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    One species defending one climate- the global climate.
    There is no such thing as a "global climate". Is the Earth hot and arid? Is it cold and wet?? ... ...

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    They are wilfully deaf to the sirens of capitalist destruction- as they should be.
    Capitalism CREATES wealth. It is why America became the wealthiest nation on Earth. Socialism (whether through Communism or Fascism) STEALS wealth... It does not create any wealth... That's a big part of why America is currently over 20 trillion dollars in debt as we speak.

  13. #73 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    44,908
    Thanks
    9,713
    Thanked 7,400 Times in 5,849 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 6,397 Times in 6,144 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    gfm7174- your perceptions are waaaaay too narrow. Expand. Chill out, get laid- enjoy the earth's climate.

    Just don't contribute to its destruction- or the kids will come a-looking for you along with the Brit maggot.
    " First they came for the journalists...
    We don't know what happened after that . "

    Maria Ressa.

  14. #74 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Hardly, Roy Spencer is responsible for the UAH satellite temperature dataset.
    So he says. Unfortunately, there is NO satellite temperature dataset. These are fabricated numbers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    If you think that satellites cannot measure temperature then you'll have to explain why the data received corresponds so well with radiosondes in weather balloons.
    It is not possible for a satellite to measure temperature. They can only measure light. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    As to emissivity ε = 0.78.
    Argument from randU. You are using an arbitrary made up number. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    This is the kind of value you'd expect from a grey body like the Earth.
    Why? Anything that isn't a perfect absorber or a perfect reflector is a gray body. That means any emissivity greater than 0% and less than 100%.

    Do you have any idea how you measure the emissivity of a body?

  15. #75 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    76,854
    Thanks
    30,538
    Thanked 12,939 Times in 11,525 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,361 Times in 1,347 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Makes sense. Perfectly logical.

    What is the point of going to class and getting an education if there isn't going to be a habitable world to live in when they grow up?
    Voicing your usual needless fears again? Did you know our population is increasing on Earth?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-06-2019, 09:48 AM
  2. When will climate change strike you?
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10-11-2013, 05:02 AM
  3. A Call to Action
    By SmarterthanYou in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 05:29 PM
  4. Pennsylvania Public School Peeping on Pupils in Private
    By Timshel in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-20-2010, 03:35 PM
  5. Fed-up Climate Scientists Call for Strong Climate Treaty
    By blackascoal in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-07-2007, 10:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •