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

Really.

See, the Earth has some 197 million sq miles of surface area. As far as I am aware, NASA makes use of some 7,500 thermometers (if you have a higher number, and can justify that number, then you can replace my number with that number). Now, IF those thermometers were all uniformly spaced and simultaneously read by the same observer (they are not, so there is location and time biases in the data, which is a huge issue, but let's completely ignore this issue for sake of furthering conversation), then that would amount to one thermometer for every 26,266.67 sq miles, or an area about the size of West Virginia.

Now, given that temperature can often enough vary by as much as 20degF/mile, that allows for A LOT of variance over an area the size of the whole State of West Virginia. Another way to think about it is this... If I asked you what the temperature of West Virginia is right now, what would you tell me? At this very moment I am looking at this map (http://www.usairnet.com/weather/maps/current/west-virginia/temperature/), the highest temp is 63degF and the lowest is 52degF. There are only 15 specific points within the State being measured, most of which are along the edges of the State (a huge gap is present in the middle of the State)... This map (https://www.weatherwx.com/forecast....plot=temp&period=&dpp=0&usemetric=1&nocache=1) is showing a range as low as 6degC (42.8degF) and as high as 17degC (62.6degF)... (a 20degF range).

Apparently Snowshow, WV is damn cold compared to the rest of the stations across WV, but who knows about the other areas of the State that are not being measured... I'm sure that WV has some hilly areas that might be colder, or some paved areas with the sun beating down on them that are warmer... Maybe some lake effect temps going on? The possibilities are endless!!

So, is WV currently 43degF? Is it 63degF? 50? 47? 54? 57? ... ... ...

You see what I'm getting at here?

 

I am, of course, aware of your decision to deny Mathematics.

Already have.

 

I am well aware of your decision to deny Mathematics.

 

you've been shown how and why you are wrong.

nope. you made a bald assertion and got called on it.

 

You seem to be unable to even add 2+2. You've been shown how and why you are wrong. You remain refuted.

 

saw one on YouTube, prototype, manh yrs ago. that was the last time I saw it.

 

Impressive Argument, I’ll have to consider this a bit.

 

Supermorefun read in Jimmy Cagney!

 

Maybe I’m think’n o’ Bogie!?

 

So you admit it's not a black body.

I think it's safe to say it isn't 0.

The operative word is change.

That reminds me. We are still waiting for you supporting scientists.

 

Not at all.

Yes it is.

I mean any molecule on exposed rock, a patch of dirt, or, mostly, the ocean surface.

 

Yes, you do have to watch to know what numbers he is using.
To figure the emissivity for purposes of proving you wrong with regard to whether the greenhouse effect or climate change violates Stefan's law we don't need to know the temperature in an instant, using thermometers, math can be used to find it. 29 minutes into the video.

 

1040, but since you are so lazy, here is the link:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mperature-ever.567973/page-42#post-1071451432

 

The old "jive" DOS program would be more fun, but it would violate the safe space rules.

 

All we need is the average temperature to compare that to the math used in the video, which does NOT use thermometers or a random number generator.

Oh, wait, he did have a thermometer, but hand held, which he used to prove another point, and did not use in any calculation, but you can't see it because you are LAZY.

 

Here is an amusing link regarding randU, https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2019/04/14/randu/

You are of course free to believe what you wish and to do as thou wilt, however, I am as well and having read your numerous posts just in this thread I am quite sure that I will not be wasting my time on conversation with you if you choose to continue with me in the same inane way you have inexplicably chosen to debate several others in this thread.

So let me lay out one rule, just between me and you, eh? If you choose to respond with anything that ends with, "Source: <Abstract Field of Knowledge>" then I am done. I will put you on Ignore for at least the rest of the day - maybe forever. How would that serve your efforts to accomplish what is essentially a need for contact in the alienated digital world we find ourselves?

Statistics is its name, not Statistical Mathematics, and it is not the same as Statistical Mechanics.

I appreciate your skepticism about the subject of this thread, however, your arguments are often without content and simply call out a previous post as being a logical fallacy, when usually they are not.

Your response here to the images I posted for example is inane. I am trying to point out an obvious similarity between the average global temperature curve and the solar irradiance curve as well as the CMIP's apparent lack of interest in the very first thing it should be interested in and you respond that we don't have enough thermometers!? Source: Statistical Mathematics?

The current Earth's temperature is obviously a vastly measured quantity and it needs zero thermometers to provide the data, source: Google Earth. Is it possible that all of the satellites that provide the collection of visible light required to image your trip to Snowshoe WV are not also equipped with FLIR type sensors? Have you been reading the full thread and if so were you familiar with the ARGO float system prior to this thread? That my friend is why we are here, not to prove our mental superiority, but rather to legitimately argue our position, be willing to concede it, and to educate ourselves in the process.

It would be another matter all together if you had only argued about the validity of pre-satellite global average temperature assertions. However, since the climate scientists real time direct data component begins about 1850, it seems unreasonable to a large extent, but not worth the distraction to nitpick an argument about it, much less to dismiss it completely.

You have literally dismissed completely the so called greenhouse effect of our atmosphere. Dismissed completely IR adsorbtion data well established by the Source: Organic Chemistry.

Ok - nevermind my above gripe about your annoying use of "Source: <Abstract Field of Knowledge>" You've infected me with it and I'll have to start using it myself... Hahahaha, no, never.... Cite a source or don't use the word.

 

Correct. Earth is not a black body. Everything ends up being a "grey body", as there is no matter that is a perfect reflector (0.0 emissivity) or a perfect absorber (1.0 emissivity).

We don't know what the temperature of Earth is. There aren't enough thermometers, and the variance of temperature (20degF/mile occurs often enough, and I've personally observed such temperature variance) is very high, meaning that an insane amount of thermometers are required to bring the margin of error down to a usable and meaningful number.

RQAA. (Repetitious Question Already Answered/Addressed)

 

The US is within 3 degrees of the North America warming trend that occurred between 1580 and 1695.

The Spanish must have been, "Hot Blooded."

 

You can't heat a warmer body with a colder one.

 

Global is different from the United States.

 

I guess you aren't aware of statistics. Read this:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-precision.php#understanding
The smart people have data on the outliers. You don't.

Golly. I sure wish you could provide a link.
Seems everyone can support their view except you.
Waiting. Still waiting.

 

You don't need to. The atmosphere is colder.

 

Video dismissed on sight for reasons I've already explained.

Radiance = Temperature^4 * StefanBoltzmannConstant * EmissivityConstant

When applied to Earth, it turns into the following:

Radiance = [UNKNOWN VALUE]^4 * StefanBoltzmannConstant * [UNKNOWN VALUE].

There's no way to solve that equation.

Thus, you likewise cannot calculate the temperature from an unknown radiance and emissivity.

 

No definition of "climate change" was offered there either.

Define "climate change". Describe precisely how climate (a subjective thing [usually described as "weather over a long period of time"] that has absolutely no quantitative value) "changes".

 

HA! That was indeed quite amusing.

I'm just very direct and to the point. If you wish for me to expand upon my claims, then I'd be more than happy to do so, as you've seen with the "not enough thermometers" claim. I'm willing to do that with any of my claims, such as the "heat only flows from hot to cold" claim.

You might be interested in my detailed expansion upon the specific words "science" and "religion" and what each of them are and how they work and the logical framework behind them (if you haven't seen it yet). That expansion can be found here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mperature-ever.567973/page-34#post-1071445866

By doing that, I am just telling you where I am pulling my information from. Just like "www.wikipedia.com" is a source, "www.livescience.com" is a source, The Bible is a source, and etc. etc., Mathematics is a source, a particular theory of science is a source, logic is a source, etc...

Statistical Mathematics is simply a particular branch of mathematics, like how phenomenology is a particular branch of philosophy. "Statistics" is another way that one could phrase "Statistical Mathematics". I've expanded upon that as well, and have listed out the requirements of that branch of mathematics that are being ignored by people claiming to know the temperature of the Earth.

You'd have to define "content" then, since I have presented arguments-a-many even within this thread alone, let alone other threads. Again, if you wish for me to expand upon a particular claim of mine, I'd be more than happy to.

Logical fallacies render an argument to be invalid. Calling out such fallacies is, in and of itself, a counterargument to the fallacious argument that was presented. That discussion takes the logical form A->B, C->!A. A->B is the original argument that was made, C is the action of calling out the fallacy, thus invalidating the predicate that contained the fallacy (!A).

Yup, and I responded by telling you that those numbers are meaningless. Why are they meaningless? Because we can't accurately measure the temperature of the Earth with our current temperature station infrastructure. Why? Because of the mathematics that I provided you with, explaining how high the margin of error would be, since temperature variance (even within a distance as little as a sq mile) is insanely high, which means that MANY MANY thermometers are needed in order to reduce that margin of error down to a usable and meaningful number. There's much more I could get into regarding this bit, but to keep it more simplistic, I'm only focusing on the surface of the Earth (ie, not the atmosphere).

The end point that I summarize that into is "dismissed due to use of randU numbers". I say that because, IF you input wild guesses as [temperature of _______], THEN you will also output a wild guess for [temperature of Earth as a whole].

Yes, because that is the very thing that is stopping us from knowing what the temperature of the Earth is. Temperature has a very high variance, even per sq mile, and even per minute, so that means that (with very few thermometers) the margin of error is effectively as high as the range of recorded temperatures throughout all of history (in other words, a wild guess). I cite Statistical Mathematics as my source because it has numerous requirements for a statistical analysis which are not being followed, such as eliminating biasing factors (such as location and time). It requires that raw data be used, data to be selected by randN, normalized by paired randR, a variance to be declared and justified, a margin of error to be calculated using said variance, and etc...

Satellites do not work for this either, and here is why they don't work. Satellites do not measure absolute temperature. What they do measure, as you so kindly pointed out here, is light. Now, how do we convert light (radiance) into absolute temperature? Via the Stefan Boltzmann Law. The law's equation is as follows: Radiance = Temperature^4 * SBConstant * EmissivityConstant (a measured constant). The issue which comes up now is that we do not know the emissivity of Earth (which in order to know, we must first know the temperature of Earth). This chicken and egg issue is why satellites do not work to determine the temperature of Earth. Even the light measured by satellites might also include light from sources other than what is being radiated from Earth (star light, moon light, etc.), so we don't really know precisely how much of that light is attributed to Earth's radiation as opposed to the radiation from other objects. In other words, we can't solve for radiation when temperature and emissivity are unknown, and we can't solve for temperature when radiation and emissivity are unknown. We can't know the emissivity unless we know the temperature.

See above argument for why I dismiss "satellite readings" as valid data.

As I have asked others, I will ask you. Please describe Greenhouse Effect for me (specifically the mechanism of how it works) without violating any currently standing theories of science (namely the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law).

Those things ARE sources though, as I explained earlier.

I hope this starts to satisfy some of your questions regarding my arguments.