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

... thus it can't heat the surface.

 

It doesn't need to. It can just increase the time for the surface to lose it's heat.

 

Just to be succinct and clear, you deny our current ability to measure real time surface temperature via satellites while the same tech allows us view every part of the planet in google earth?

 

This article makes use of numerous buzzwords, such as "long-term average". From when to when? Why are those years significant as opposed to any other years? Those are questions which need to be answered before the term can have any meaning.

The other problem is that it discusses "anomalies" as opposed to absolute temperature. Anomalies can only be considered AFTER analyzing a valid dataset that supports a predetermined and accepted margin of error. An absolute temperature is a measurement, while an anomaly is simply a determination that is made after the fact (an anomaly results from a statistical analysis, in this case, one which was never performed).

Another problem, even if I WERE to accept everything being spewed by NASA, NOAA, and likewise, is that we are only looking at such a small speck of a time frame of Earth's existence and acting as if changes during that speck of a time frame is a meaningful trend. Maybe "global temperature averages" were much higher 5,000 years ago than they currently are, yet life on Earth still survived all the same.

All the Church of Global Warming is is irrational fear peddling (in the form of a State Religion) by big government because big government always wants more power and justification for its existence. In order to gain and keep such power, big government needs to point out a problem (or in this case, create a non-existent problem out of thin air) and then pretend to "solve" that "problem", never actually solving it, for if they actually did, then their existence wouldn't be necessary anymore.

I do not make use of links. Links are (largely) intellectual laziness. I instead make use of philosophy. I form my own arguments and then explain the reasoning behind them.

 

which are then subsequently refuted by others, using links and citations. You can not support a single claim you've made with evidence, citation, experimentation. While your own arguments are refuted by evidence, citation and experimentation.

 

I'd like to be precise on terminology. Heat is not thermal energy itself. Heat, rather, is the flow of thermal energy. So, when I make reference to heat, that is the definition that I am using.

The bolded would require a coupling reducer (to reduce heat), such as clear walls and roof around some plants (a greenhouse). An open convective system (our atmosphere) is not a coupling reducer. Heat flows from the surface, into the atmosphere, and into space all the same. The atmosphere reflects, absorbs, and emits light just like any other substance does. It is not a one-way magick blanket/mirror.

Also, the bolded is not describing an energy source. Additional energy is required to increase the temperature of something. Where is this additional energy coming from?

 

Yes, for the reasons that I described in the prior response.

 

We have computers now you know.
Every time we get more measurement stations we can statistically reduce the margin of error from the prior measurements. We have been adding for a coupe hundred years and mad a huge leap with satellite measurements.


snip. useless drivel

You don't use links because you can't find any credible ones that support your position.

 

When I say heat I mean heat.

But the atmosphere is a magic one way mirror with the bulk of solar energy passing thru it to warm the surface and a portion of the reflected IR warming it.
What do you mean by the bold part?

 

Which might have bearing, were there any reason to believe every GHG molecule is colder than every surface-bound molecule.

By your definition that should be "thermal energy".

No it doesn't, because Earth is a closed system, and thus unable to transfer thermal energy into space by conduction or convection.

 

https://www.instesre.org/BuildAPlanetDocumentation.htm

conversion from kevin to C (b2) 273


stefan constant (b4) 0.0000000567


sun radiance (b6) 3.90E+26

albedo (b7) 0.3076

solar constant b8 =$B$6/(4*PI()*B9*B9*1000000)

Earth/sun distance (b9) 1.50E+08

temperature of earth (b10) =(B8*(1-B7)/(4*$B$4))^0.25-$B$2

Watch the video.

 

I don't think all satellite output is in text format, so like a video of a professor, probably inadmissible. Any temp measured would still violate his use of Stefan's law...

 

DUH?? In the general sense everything is a "black" body.

 

Huh?

 

You got that right!!

 

Well, technically and scientifically it is called a grey body. Since all bodies radiate all bodies are grey bodies, or in a broad sense with loose terminology, "black" bodies.

 

Graphite, but, uh, black face, you stop that.

 

Computers are not magick.

Math errors.

** Failure to eliminate biasing factors (in this case, location and time).
** Failure to normalize by paired randR.
** Failure to declare and justify a variance.
** Failure to calculate a margin of error using said variance.

You keep completely ignoring variance. Do you realize that temperatures can EASILY vary by as much as 20degF per MILE? (I have personally observed this variance and use it to my advantage when hiking on very warm days). This means that even if you had a single thermometer for every sq mile, that a specific location within that sq mile of area could be a whole 20degF warmer or cooler than another specific location within that same sq mile of area. This also means that MANY more thermometers are required in order to bring the margin of error down to a usable accuracy level.

It doesn't matter how many thermometers we add. Inputs containing math errors will not yield accurate outputs.

Satellites are not capable of measuring Earth's temperature either. I have already explained why this is. If you believe that they can, then explain to me (in detail) the process of how they supposedly do it.

Logically valid arguments are not "useless drivel".

No. I don't use links because I refuse to toss logic and philosophy out the window. I wish to remain rational.

 

Circular definitions are meaningless. Define "heat" as you are using it. I already told you that "heat" as I am using it means "the flow of thermal energy".

No it isn't.

I mean that the Earth (the entirely of it, which includes the atmosphere) radiates out into space.

 

If you were to look at links you could see how this is dealt with.
Knowledge is a wonderful thing. You should try it.

I must have missed it. Post it again.


Logically valid arguments are not "useless drivel".


No. I don't use links because I refuse to toss logic and philosophy out the window. I wish to remain rational.[/QUOTE]

 

Temperature

But it is. It allows most of the suns radiation thru while blocking then reradiating some of the IR reflected from the surface.

So heat?

 

The surface is warmer than the atmosphere above it. A CO2 molecule cannot heat the surface. Heat does not flow from cold to hot.

No. You selectively cut off the rest of my sentence there. I was speaking of the flow of thermal energy, not of thermal energy itself. That's why I used the word heat.

That's not what a closed system is. A closed system is simply any system with defined boundaries. In this particular discussion, we are discussing the Sun-Earth-Space system.

You are correct that Earth cannot transfer thermal energy into space via conduction and convection. It CAN, however, transfer it via radiation. The closer towards the top of the atmosphere one gets, the more and more that radiation becomes the preferred method of heating.

The Earth heats space via radiation (in accordance to the Stefan Boltzmann Law). By claiming that heat gets "trapped" by CO2 (and other GHGs), one is effectively reducing the radiance of Earth (the method by which the Earth cools) while also claiming that the temperature of Earth is increasing. However, per SB, radiance and temperature are directly proportional to each other. In other words, if radiance were decreased, then temperature MUST decrease in an amount directly proportional to the decreased radiance.

 

You keep neglecting that the surface can heat the cooler atmosphere. This in turn slows the transfer of "heat" from the surface to space.

 

This link is pulling an "albedo" number out of thin air. We do not know the albedo of Earth, nor the emissivity of Earth. We don't know how much of that light is due to Earth's radiance, nor how much is due to moon radiance, starlight radiance, and etc...

Like I said, the SB equation turns into:
Radiance = [unknown value]^4 * SB Constant * [unknown value].

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

Number is based on bad logic (as explained earlier). Essentially, a made up number.

Okay.

Okay.

Number is based on bad logic (as explained earlier). Essentially, a made up number.

No need to.

 

Argument of the Stone Fallacy. No counterargument presented.

Form your own arguments instead of parroting what others say.

Inversion Fallacy.

In a nut shell... Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure light. Those light readings cannot be converted into temperature readings because we do not know what the emissivity of Earth is (since we do not know the temperature of Earth).