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

[gfm7175]

Yes, earth does have many climatic regions - and they form an holistic whole to present a global climate. Imagine looking at it from the moon.

So, the Earth has a hot, cold, dry, wet, humid, arid, windy, calm, snowy, rainy, frozen, cloudy, sunny climate?? Interesting...

[gfm7175]

Yes you did. Agreeing with maggot was statement enough.

No, I didn't. I was quite clear in what I said.

You really are silly- although I'd bet that it feels like ' clever ' to you.

Would you like to address my arguments, or just keep talking about me?

[cancel2 2022]

The highest microwave frequency is 170Ghz with a wavelength of 1.8mm. To emit at that frequency, the emitting molecule would have to be 1.8 deg K. That's damn cold. Are you sure you are using the correct terminology?
Measuring the radiance of Earth is meaningless unless you know the emissivity of Earth. You don't know how much is due to thermal radiance and how much is due to reflections.

No satellite measures an absolute temperature of anything. It's not possible for a satellite to do so.

So you assume a temperature, then say that IS the temperature. Right. Now you're making even less sense.

There are four channels detected by microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites. The 4 frequencies are designated MSU Channels 1 (50.30 GHz), 2 (53.74 GHz), 3 (54.96 GHz), and 4 (57.95 GHz)

[volsrock]

The UK will be an OK place when it rids itself of the maggot generation . Shameful old parasites.

Brain washed kids layed out of school...

[cancel2 2022]

The highest microwave frequency is 170Ghz with a wavelength of 1.8mm. To emit at that frequency, the emitting molecule would have to be 1.8 deg K. That's damn cold. Are you sure you are using the correct terminology?
Measuring the radiance of Earth is meaningless unless you know the emissivity of Earth. You don't know how much is due to thermal radiance and how much is due to reflections.

No satellite measures an absolute temperature of anything. It's not possible for a satellite to do so.

So you assume a temperature, then say that IS the temperature. Right. Now you're making even less sense.

Maybe this will help you!!

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198

[moon]

No, I didn't. I was quite clear in what I said.

maggot decried the rights of kids and you agreed with him.

Would you like to address my arguments, or just keep talking about me?

I've already addressed your erroneous claim that ' the earth has no climate'. You carry on filling the threads with deniers' crap- I'll pop back regularly to laugh at you. Seems like the foundation of a relationship.

[moon]

So, the Earth has a hot, cold, dry, wet, humid, arid, windy, calm, snowy, rainy, frozen, cloudy, sunny climate?? Interesting...

Fool. Yes, it has all of those regional differences simultaneously- that's why the earth's climate must be understood , overall, on a different time-scale.
The Mesozoic forests were climatic characteristics. The most-recent ice-ages were climatic characteristics. The earth undergoes climatic changes- and it's undergoing one now. Fool.

[gfm7175]

maggot decried the rights of kids and you agreed with him.

Nobody decried their right to speak.

I've already addressed your erroneous claim that ' the earth has no climate'.

It doesn't. There is no single 'climate' of Earth. Earth has MANY climates... Climate is generally defined as "local weather over a long period of time". There is no such thing as "global local" weather; that would be a contradiction.

You carry on filling the threads with deniers' crap-

Logic, Science, and Mathematics are not "deniers' crap"... Again, if you wish to address my arguments, have at it...

I'll pop back regularly to laugh at you.

Laughing is not an argument.

Seems like the foundation of a relationship.

Jesus loves you.

[moon]

gfm7175;

It doesn't. There is no single 'climate' of Earth. Earth has MANY climates... Climate is generally defined as "local weather over a long period of time". There is no such thing as "global local" weather; that would be a contradiction.

As I've said now- maybe twice, maybe three times- the earth's climate cannot be defined in terms of ' local weather '. If you concentrate on this fact then maybe you won't offer it back to me again as some woeful contradictory ...er....point.
However, all facets of regional weather/local climate are manifestations of the earth's climate as a whole- an holistic , world-wide , summation of parts which form the global climate over time.
That climate is changing- for the worst as far as our species is concerned- and you are being a fool in denying that.

[Into the Night]

Yes, earth does have many climatic regions - and they form an holistic whole to present a global climate. Imagine looking at it from the moon.

Looking at Earth from space (or the Moon) shows many different weather systems and many different climates.

There is no global weather, so there is no global climate.

[Into the Night]

There are four channels detected by microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites. The 4 frequencies are designated MSU Channels 1 (50.30 GHz), 2 (53.74 GHz), 3 (54.96 GHz), and 4 (57.95 GHz)

None of these measure temperature.

[Into the Night]

Maybe this will help you!!

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/198

Unfortunately, for Penn State 'climate science' classes, they are wrong. The emissivity of a body has nothing to do with 'greenhouse effect'. This is an attempt to introduce a frequency term into the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Such an attempt denies the law.
No satellite can measure how much a gas is absorbing, nor can it measure the emissivity of any gas (or of any surface for that matter). This text also misuses Kirchoff's law, by ignoring the Earth itself as being a node of energy.

But at least I see where you are getting your wrong information.

'Climate scientists' deny science and mathematics.

[Into the Night]

maggot decried the rights of kids and you agreed with him.




I've already addressed your erroneous claim that ' the earth has no climate'. You carry on filling the threads with deniers' crap- I'll pop back regularly to laugh at you. Seems like the foundation of a relationship.

So what is the global weather right now?

[Into the Night]

Fool. Yes, it has all of those regional differences simultaneously- that's why the earth's climate must be understood , overall, on a different time-scale.
The Mesozoic forests were climatic characteristics. The most-recent ice-ages were climatic characteristics. The earth undergoes climatic changes- and it's undergoing one now. Fool.

The Mesozoic forests had many different climates. They were all forest climates. The ice ages had many different climates. There was more ice, but there were still forests, oceans, dry deserts, hot tropical areas, etc. What is the 'global climate?

[Into the Night]

gfm7175;


As I've said now- maybe twice, maybe three times- the earth's climate cannot be defined in terms of ' local weather '. If you concentrate on this fact then maybe you won't offer it back to me again as some woeful contradictory ...er....point.
However, all facets of regional weather/local climate are manifestations of the earth's climate as a whole- an holistic , world-wide , summation of parts which form the global climate over time.
That climate is changing- for the worst as far as our species is concerned- and you are being a fool in denying that.

So...according to you...climate has nothing to do with weather??? If this so-called 'global climate' is worse for our species, why is the world population growing???