Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

Why is the last measurement more significant than any other measurement, or even back when we didn't have the capability of measuring temperature? Or even back before humans even existed (if the Big Bang Theory is to be believed)?

You need more than four thermometers to measure the temperature of the Earth.

The sun still IS heating it. The action of the sun heating the Earth (warming the Earth) and the Earth heating space (cooling the Earth) is continuous.

​

Okay, so a Sun-Earth-Space system has been noted.

Correct, but that is not slowing or trapping heat. Heat is still flowing from hot to cold all the same. Dropping an ice cube into hot water simply increases heat due to increasing the temperature difference between the hot water and its surroundings. Heat can only be increased or decreased, never slowed/trapped. There is no such thing as a "perfect insulator".

I've been explaining everything that you've been getting wrong and why you've been getting it wrong.

 

Because we are looking for the difference in temperature.

Why?

Good, good.

​

Would you like to pick another name for it? That would be okay with me.


I've been explaining everything that you've been getting wrong and why you've been getting it wrong.[/QUOTE]

 

If the sun went out tomorrow.
How long would it take for earth to cool to the same temperature as space?

 

Heat is not thermal energy. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Heat can only be increased/decreased. It cannot be slowed/trapped/lost/found.

No. My statement speaks of increasing/decreasing heat, not slowing/trapping heat.

I'm not following... CO2 in the atmosphere is not an ice cube, nor a magick blanket, nor a ping pong table.

 

O.K. replace the word heat with thermal energy. Now what.

 

Still waiting on you to find a single scientist who agrees with your interpretation of the "science."

 

That ACTION that has taken place above is totally unrelated to conduction of the earth. Air is a poor conductor.

 

From when to when? And why is that time period more significant than any other time period?

Because 197 million sq miles (the surface area of the Earth) divided by 4 thermometers equals an area of 49.25 million sq miles per thermometer, and temperature can vary by as much as 20degF per mile, let alone 49.25 million sq miles... In other words, the margin of error would be as expansive as the possible range of temperatures. There would be too high of a margin of error for the statistical analysis to hold any meaning.

 

Not long at all... Probably within a couple days.

 

Already answered.

 

Still waiting on you to discuss the science rather than the scientist.

 

I kind of like year to year. But that's not important, is it?

Oh, your worried about MOE.
That's why we have more. And now days we have these new fangled satellites that work really good.
When you finish that up and put it in a model the measurements can be pretty good.

 

Why so long?

 

I didn't say it was... I was focusing on radiation there, not conduction. Earth cools itself via both of them (only radiation when going out into space).

True.

 

I will discuss the science with a scientist.

Tell me the name of one that supports your interpretation.

 

“Certain polyatomic gases such as water vapour and carbon dioxide absorb the infrared energy from the surface and thus inhibit its escape to space. As a result not as much infrared energy escapes to space to balance the net incoming solar.” (from the link)

“CO2 can only absorb a very limited frequency of that IR emitted from the surface. It doesn't absorb all of it. It doesn't even absorb a lot of it. But okay, CO2 has now absorbed some of this IR and the CO2 molecule is now warmed somewhat. Whoopity doo. This action actually COOLS the surface.” (what you said in response)

Well, “Whoopity doo,” being more related to “the CO2 molecule is now warmed somewhat” certainly looked like you were saying “Whooptity doo” ACTION “actually COOLS the surface.”

Okay, you are saying that the earth loses more of the IR to space than the net incoming.

How exactly you could prove that without instruments I do not get. Kind of hard to discuss the science and what is actually happening without scientists who have the actual tools for collection of data.

We do not need a scientist to debate the English language, but we do for data collection.

 

Other than the other entity “Into the Night,” I could not find his interpretation of the word “science” as “a set of falsifiable theories.” I never heard that in any of the private religious schools I attended; maybe there are some hidden pseudoscience books I am unaware of that don’t come up in searches.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mperature-ever.567973/page-44#post-1071451820

I could not get him to confirm or deny being the other entity. Having two separate entities would suggest some teacher or source other than him for his usage of that phrase or his claims about Stefan’s law and Second Law of Thermodynamics. I can find no coherent single source, book or “scientist,” for all three.

Google Search the following:

Stefan’s law Second Law of Thermodynamics “a set of falsifiable theories” Climate change

 

Do re-emitted photons count as thermal energy? And if not, why not?

Does hot coffee not cool slower in a Thermos than it does in a tumbler?

Did someone say otherwise?

 

First, let me clarify that in the following rant, my use of the word ‘you’ is not specific to MrTLegal and I apologize for the tone of these statements sounding like I know what I’m talking about, except that I do....

I am so sick of the stupidity of this assertion that humans are the cause. You know what humans are the undeniable cause of? Oceans polluted with plastic. Absolutely no other cause. Let’s fix that. Do you have any clue how mathematical models work? They are completely dependent on partial differential equations. Do you have any clue how complex the burning ball of fire at the center of our solar system is? Any idea how much more probable that the earth’s global temperature is massively dependent on the 8 minute delayed radiated power from the sun? That the co-equivalent secondary factors shielding the earth are the magnetic field and clouds? Are you aware that water is far more important than CO2 with respect to allowing the heat in as well as keeping it in?

Do you know that radiative heat transfer is the only phenomenon involving an exponent of 4? This is beside the point, other than to illustrate that we don’t know sweet fornicate all as much as we think we do.

You and Greta do understand that your proposed political solution is to literally regulate our right to freaking exhale?

 

In reverse order of the questions from your rant (one which does not cause personal offense).

1) No, there is not any attempt to regulate your exhalation. The increase of the CO2 concentration in the upper atmosphere is almost entirely driven by CO2 produced from fossil fuel combustion. That is the type of emission regulation being proposed.
Source: https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm

2) Yes, the amount of radiative energy does decrease by a factor of 4, based on distance from the sun. That is one of the data points that I use to help get individuals like @gfm7175 to discuss how the greenhouse effect is necessary to explain why a planet like Venus is warmer than Mercury despite being 4x further (and thus experiencing 64x less radiative energy).
Source: https://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3824

3) Yes, water is a far more abundant Greenhouse gas in our upper atmosphere. But water vapor as a greenhouse effect is controlled by temperature, not the other way around like CO2 or methane. If you reduced the temperature of the planet too much, then water vapor freezes and it's only impact as a greenhouse effect would be to further exacerbate the cooling through the albedo effect (ice reflecting solar energy back into space). Conversely, if you increase the temperature of the planet so much that you vaporize large bodies of water, that water vapor turns into dark rain clouds and that further adds to the global warming effect (again through the albedo effect).

Blaming water vapor is akin to blaming the sound volume on the amplifier. Technically accurate, but it ignores the impact of the volume dial.
Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marsha...carbon-dioxide-which-wins-in-climate-warming/

4 & 5) Yes, there are other variables, like solar intensity, orbital mechanics, and meteors which can cause or explain climatic change. Increases in the CO2 concentration are the best explainer for the current warming trend.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

6) Mathematical differential equations are not a speciality for me, but they are a speciality for the data scientists who build and improve climate models which were proven in a NASA study from January to be largely accurate.
Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/...are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

7) Even if you reject that humans are not responsible for climate change, they are responsible for more negative natural events than ocean plastic accumulation. Issues like deforestation, animal/plant extinction, and heavy metal pollutions in the air and water can all be directly traced back to human activities.
Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/...an-impacts-environment/?q=&page=1&per_page=25

My turn: Do you agree that the Earth has warmed to a significant degree over the last ~150 years? Do you agree that the Earth is likely to continue warming at the same or an accelerated rate over the course of the next century? Do you agree that altering Greenhouse gas concentrations can have a significant impact on the climate? Do you recognize that increases in the CO2 concentrations over the last 150 years can be linked both directly and indirectly to human emissions? Are you aware of any alternative explanation for the current warming event that is a better or more accurate explainer than increases in the CO2 concentration in the upper atmosphere caused by human combustion of fossil fuels?

 

Would it be wrong to assume your mention of the "exponent of 4" you are referring to Stefan-Boltzman law equation?

Would it be wrong to assume that if "water is far more important than CO2 with respect to allowing the heat in as well as keeping it in," that you believe excessive CO2 emissions can cause global warming?

An assertion would not be stupid (from even your perspective, depending upon your answer above), believing an assertion (including yours) might be, but believing humans are the cause is only stupid if it is impossible for humans to be the cause. Are you claiming it is impossible for humans to be a cause for Global Warming?

 

That is the model to which I refer, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html. It is exceptional, I can't think of a single other physical model with any metric raised to the fourth power. Mandelbrot's revolutionary exposition on the Fractal Geometry of Nature implies that all exponents in all equations have physical meaning and implication. It is really astounding stuff because it means that after the fact of the data collection and modelling, the formulas themselves offer insights to what literally amounts to multi-dimensional features of physical phenomena. Radiant heat transfer apparently occurs not only through the three dimensions of space, but also through a fourth unknown dimension: time, ether, something else not explained. A bit far fetched perhaps, but my debate skills to illustrate how little we know regarding basic physics in so many many phenomena and fundamentals are in dire need need of improvement for me to really even to attempt posting on this site.

This question is not clear to me and my assertion is maybe not clear to you.

Check this out, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

Solar power falls unevenly on the surface of the earth, the models don't account for it, and it is not fully measured in real time such that the models could be calibrated against it.

Cloud cover both prevents solar power coming in as well as retained solar power going out. The other part I mentioned was the effect of the earth's magnetic field which is popularly attributed with protecting us from gamma rays - well maybe if it's powerful enough to bounce gamma rays then it's powerful enough to bounce a significant amount of other solar irradiance? Again, not fully understood and certainly not accounted for in the models.

I certainly cannot conclude that peeps burning fuel are the sole cause of this tiny freaking sliver-in-time heat wave, but neither can I deny it is of course a possibility. Nevertheless as my chemist buddy used to assert that quantum mechanics means that you might literally place a pan of water on top of the stove only to see it freeze - ah, ha haha haaaaaaaaaa - NO It Will Never Happen!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition

No, I am claiming it is super unlikely that "carbon" aka CO2 is THE cause.

 

Cool Bro, I like to keep it impersonal.

No doubt I was being a bit dramatic, however, all of the regulations proposed ARE based on CO2 emissions and CO2 is literally the stuff we exhale to live.

It is independent of distance and it is exponential, not multiple. 4x, 64x!? what are you on about here?

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html

I really do not understand why water is not at least a co-equivalent partner in the great stupid climate change, climate warming, whatever debate.

I DENY THERE IS A CLIMATE!!! CLIMATE DENIER!!! It is ridiculous.....

Oh good lord sweet f'all, "technically accurate but it ignores the impact of the volume dial"????

If anything being ignored as the volume dial it is the sun. This horror of being warmer is quaint. How about another Ice Age instead?

No. It is not even sufficient to amount to a trend. Ten or twenty years of warm weather do not a trend make. I made no reference to orbital mechanics or meteors.

Interesting link, curious about that graph. "Temperature Changes (°F)(w.r.t 1980-1999). Assuming w.r.t means "with respect to" then shouldn't the graph show a flat 0 degree deviation between 1980 and 1999?

Woo Hoo - appeal to authoritah!!! NASA!

Here just for kicks is Feynman shredding NASA,

https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt

I do not conclusively reject that this minute warming period is the result of humans burning fossil fuel, it is totally possible. What I reject is that the discussion is inanely lopsided to the point that XOM is being blamed for the wildfires in Australia. And don't get me wrong, J.D. Rockefeller makes Darth Vader seem like a nice guy, or at least just a Steve Jobs kinda prick....

What I object to is the proposed inane cash grab from the fuel and now the auto industry that has already been subjected to inordinate taxation. How about those at the pump fuel taxes? Are they paying for new bridges and infrastructure? F' no they are not. It is a federal level tax that hasn't even closely been returned to the public to build better roads, bridges, trains, planes and or automobiles...

No - I do not consider the warming to be significant. I do not agree that the Earth is likely to continue to warm at the same or accelerated rate for the next 100 y. I do agree that CO2 atmospheric concentrations are directly impacted by humans burning fuel, and breathing:7.8 billion - it's a real thing. Maybe just having like about 4 billion more "copper tops" running around at 98.6 °F is making it hotter, eh?

 

Here's one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ball
and he wins his lawsuit against the guy responsible for the hockey stick chart.
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/0...m-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/

 

Tim Ball thinks that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics?