| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
zamuro
1 thumbs up
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 572
Location: New York
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:01 am Post subject: |
 #81 |
| davisstraub wrote: |
| Rising. |
Oops thanks!. The temperature is rising and my grapes are turning into raisins  |
|
|
|
adyr
1 thumbs up
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 227
Location: Oradea, Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:40 am Post subject: |
#82 |
Once again, raising temperature is not the same thing as heating.
And stop that thing about a real temperature. My point was about the pseudo-temperature, which is not a temperature. The average temperature is neither an intensive value (as the scientific temperature is), nor an extensive value. The average temperature is an idiotic thing that has no physical meaning whatsoever.
To convince yourself of that, you should learn that the usual way pseudo-scientists 'prove' that a 'greenhouse' effect is real, is by calculating an effective temperature (more precisely, radiation temperature), using a grey body approximation (kind of like approximating the Earth with a flat Earth with a solid dome on top), then comparing that value (value which is kind of legit, if you know what it means, but they don't) with their pseudoscientific average temperature.
It's easy to check out if the concept is ok. For that, you should do the calculations. First, grey body. Use as temperature the pseudo-temperature that the pseudo-scientists say the Earth has. Calculate the outgoing energy.
Then, go more towards the real world by imagining that the world is not at an 'average temperature', but it is composed on two halves each with its own temperature (true thermodynamic temperature, not pseudo-temperature). Pick up two typical values which could happen on Earth at mid day, and at mid night, in such a way that the pseudo-temperature (that is, their sum divided by 2) is equal with the pseudo-temperature they tell the Earth has. Calculate the outgoing energy.
You'll notice a strange thing: it's not the same as in the pseudo-temperature thing for the whole body. If you consider a surface equal with the Earth, and use the proper temperatures, you'll find out that the difference in energy is somewhat on the same order as the 'missing heat' (which has a long and funny story, with the pseudo-scientists denying the local conservation of energy, inventing teleportation and even perpetuum mobile in order to 'explain' their miss, some would even acknowledge errors in pseudo-science on the same order with the 'heating', but of course, in the other sense, or otherwise it might mean no heating whatsoever).
Now, this is a simple matter, with a field of temperatures with two values only. Imagine that the real field is not that simple Besides, this is a calculus with an 'average emissivity' all over the body, which is again plain dumb. The real thing has varying emissivity on its surface. Also has a varying albedo in visible, which is again very important, it is not the same thing if it's at the pole or at the equator (can you figure out why?).
All of above, and you didn't even start to consider an atmosphere... add it, and you'll have a bit of trouble with the radiative issues the pseudo-scientists love so much. Add convection and clouds, and the damn thing becomes intractable. Not now, but in foreseeable future, too.
But back to the simpler model, ignore the whole weather thing, convection, clouds, winds, ocean currents... check the model considering pseudoscientific averages all over the place, versus the model which considers fields, closer to reality (but still way, way far from it). Calculate the energy output.
Energy input is simple. You have the effective temperature of the Sun, the distance from the Sun, the Earth radius, so it's easy to calculate. It varies somewhat, and that thing is important. Not only the energy variation is important, but other things as well, perhaps... some evil denialists tell that cosmic rays might have an impact and the Sun has a word in it, too, and some evil denialists from CERN even performed the blasphemy of checking that experimentally, because they have seen a cloud chamber before, those pesky denialists... but anyway, you may safely ignore that for a start.
Heating (or cooling) results from those two energies. Since there is a difference in the output energy depending on how you calculate it (with proper fields, or with pseudoscientific averages), can you figure out how an artificial 'heating' could occur? Only from numerology, and not from reality? |
|
|
|
zamuro
1 thumbs up
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 572
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:13 am Post subject: |
#83 |
| adyr wrote: |
Once again, raising temperature is not the same thing as heating.
And stop that thing about a real temperature. My point was about the pseudo-temperature, which is not a temperature. The average temperature is neither an intensive value (as the scientific temperature is), nor an extensive value. The average temperature is an idiotic thing that has no physical meaning whatsoever.
To convince yourself of that, you should learn that the usual way pseudo-scientists 'prove' that a 'greenhouse' effect is real, is by calculating an effective temperature (more precisely, radiation temperature), using a grey body approximation (kind of like approximating the Earth with a flat Earth with a solid dome on top), then comparing that value (value which is kind of legit, if you know what it means, but they don't) with their pseudoscientific average temperature.
It's easy to check out if the concept is ok. For that, you should do the calculations. First, grey body. Use as temperature the pseudo-temperature that the pseudo-scientists say the Earth has. Calculate the outgoing energy.
Then, go more towards the real world by imagining that the world is not at an 'average temperature', but it is composed on two halves each with its own temperature (true thermodynamic temperature, not pseudo-temperature). Pick up two typical values which could happen on Earth at mid day, and at mid night, in such a way that the pseudo-temperature (that is, their sum divided by 2) is equal with the pseudo-temperature they tell the Earth has. Calculate the outgoing energy.
You'll notice a strange thing: it's not the same as in the pseudo-temperature thing for the whole body. If you consider a surface equal with the Earth, and use the proper temperatures, you'll find out that the difference in energy is somewhat on the same order as the 'missing heat' (which has a long and funny story, with the pseudo-scientists denying the local conservation of energy, inventing teleportation and even perpetuum mobile in order to 'explain' their miss, some would even acknowledge errors in pseudo-science on the same order with the 'heating', but of course, in the other sense, or otherwise it might mean no heating whatsoever).
Now, this is a simple matter, with a field of temperatures with two values only. Imagine that the real field is not that simple Besides, this is a calculus with an 'average emissivity' all over the body, which is again plain dumb. The real thing has varying emissivity on its surface. Also has a varying albedo in visible, which is again very important, it is not the same thing if it's at the pole or at the equator (can you figure out why?).
All of above, and you didn't even start to consider an atmosphere... add it, and you'll have a bit of trouble with the radiative issues the pseudo-scientists love so much. Add convection and clouds, and the damn thing becomes intractable. Not now, but in foreseeable future, too.
But back to the simpler model, ignore the whole weather thing, convection, clouds, winds, ocean currents... check the model considering pseudoscientific averages all over the place, versus the model which considers fields, closer to reality (but still way, way far from it). Calculate the energy output.
Energy input is simple. You have the effective temperature of the Sun, the distance from the Sun, the Earth radius, so it's easy to calculate. It varies somewhat, and that thing is important. Not only the energy variation is important, but other things as well, perhaps... some evil denialists tell that cosmic rays might have an impact and the Sun has a word in it, too, and some evil denialists from CERN even performed the blasphemy of checking that experimentally, because they have seen a cloud chamber before, those pesky denialists... but anyway, you may safely ignore that for a start.
Heating (or cooling) results from those two energies. Since there is a difference in the output energy depending on how you calculate it (with proper fields, or with pseudoscientific averages), can you figure out how an artificial 'heating' could occur? Only from numerology, and not from reality? |
Adyr I am not taking about heat now. I am saying simply is that if I have a hemometer and measure that the temperature of X went from 10 deg to 11 deg Well I can say that the temperature of X went 1 deg up. This is just what I measured. |
|
|
|
FMAN
1 thumbs up
Joined: 03 Mar 2009
Posts: 1181
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:22 am Post subject: |
#84 |
If I achieve retirement I'd like to garden and participate in pan evaporation studies.   |
|
|
|
adyr
1 thumbs up
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 227
Location: Oradea, Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: |
#85 |
| Quote: |
Adyr I am not taking about heat now. I am saying simply is that if I have a hemometer and measure that the temperature of X went from 10 deg to 11 deg Well I can say that the temperature of X went 1 deg up. This is just what I measured.
|
So what? It's not what the pseudo-scientists are doing. Anyway, what do you prefer? 1 deg down from 40 C, with humidity going up to 100%, or would you prefer 40 C with humidity close to 0 and some slight wind? Just a joke, maybe I make you realize that there is much on Earth except temperatures. |
|
|
|
zamuro
1 thumbs up
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 572
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:18 am Post subject: |
#86 |
Adyr:
Now that we seem to agree that at least the temperature of X can be measured (a real temperature). Let say now that I am interested in the temperature of X and Y so I put a thermometer in X and another in Y but I will report only the average value. A pseudo-temperature if you wish although I prefer to call it the average temperature of X and Y. If over time the average temperature does not change I certainly cannot say that the temperature in X and Y didn't change. They may have not changed or X and Y may have also gone up and down by the same amount. However, if the average temperature went up I can say that the temperature in one of them must have gone up. More information of course will be obtained if I were to give you the temperature of X and Y separately but even if I didn't you know that the temperature in X or Y went up. If they didn't go up by the same amount or one of them went down then the other must have gotten a temperature higher than the average temperature value that I gave you. |
|
|
|
adyr
1 thumbs up
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 227
Location: Oradea, Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
#87 |
| Quote: |
but I will report only the average value
|
It's meaningless, physically.
| Quote: |
I can say that the temperature in one of them must have gone up.
|
That's only numerology. And you aren't even able to cherry pick that temperature, because you don't know which one.
The fact is, that depending on specific heats of the places you measure that temperature, "you can say" that one of them must have gone up, while in fact the system have been cooling.
You don't know what happened. Maybe some water condensed there, and that's the reason why temperature rised. Your average temperature is pseudo-science and irrelevant for deciding if the world is heated or cooled.
By the way, do you know what's the yearly 'trend' (that is, a line drawn through a wildly varying curve, varying way more than the trend)? Do you realize that in that pseudo-science, the noise is way bigger than the pseudo-measured signal?
Do you know how the temperature varies over the surface of the Earth? Have you seen changes in degrees over distances less than hundreds of meters (I know I did, often)? How many stations do you think there are over the Earth, that they use for the pseudo-scientific average? Do you know what an unrepresentative sample is? Do you know what hasty generalization means?
Why would you cherry pick the points X and Y, when there are a lot of other points, by the way?
If anyone is curious why the temperature increased in one point, it might be this reason:
 |
|
|
|
zamuro
1 thumbs up
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 572
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:17 am Post subject: |
#88 |
Adyr:
[/quote]
It's meaningless, physically.
[quote]
No it is not meaningless there is information there.
| Quote: |
| That's only numerology. |
Whatever you want to call it but it is true.
| Quote: |
| And you aren't even able to cherry pick that temperature, |
In my example I was only interested in X and Y so that is were I placed the thermometers. I was just illustrating how an average temperature sometimes can give you useful information. Not the whole picture but useful information nevertheless (that there was some temperature increase at least in one of the places where I set my thermometer). |
|
|
|
zamuro
1 thumbs up
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 572
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:32 am Post subject: |
#89 |
| Quote: |
| The fact is, that depending on specific heats of the places you measure that temperature, "you can say" that one of them must have gone up, while in fact the system have been cooling. |
Here again you are not making sense. I am not taling about heating or cooling. I told you that I measure the temperature and give you the average value . So if the average value is higher than before then one of the two places where I placed the thermometer has to have a higher temperature now. period, This is just what I measured and basic algebra (err.. numerology). Whatever the specific heat of the system or any complication you want to throw in I just measured the temperature so if it when up it did went up.
Read more: http://www.hanggliding.org/viewtopic.php?p=292113#292113#ixzz23piJVmdI |
|
|
|
adyr
1 thumbs up
Joined: 04 Jun 2012
Posts: 227
Location: Oradea, Romania
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 11:41 am Post subject: |
#90 |
| Quote: |
No it is not meaningless there is information there
|
Like a true numerology believer you spoke. Exactly this argument is served by one that applies all kind of idiotic formulae over all kinds of numbers, to extract 'information'.
There is no information if you don't know what 'information' is there. As I showed you, there are many reasons why that numerologic figure could be changing, and you have no clue why.
| Quote: |
Whatever you want to call it but it is true.
|
Again, like a true believer you spoke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology
| Quote: |
In my example I was only interested in X and Y so that is were I placed the thermometers
|
Really? And you call X and Y 'world'? You have a very tiny world, then
| Quote: |
I was just illustrating how an average temperature sometimes can give you useful information
|
Really? Was it useful, indeed? Why didn't you notice from that figure that the Y thermometer broke, so it gives wrong measurements, whence the rise in the numerological value? Does that number contain also the info about damaged apparatus, or is it only about CO2 god? Really.
| Quote: |
that there was some temperature increase at least in one of the places where I set my thermometer
|
Or that one termometer malfunctions. Or it happened that the sunlight reached it. Or maybe the sunlight reached it always (do you know how dumb it is to measure temperature in such a case?) - during the day, of course - and the 'temperature' rise was because somebody painted it black (it was white before). Is it that hard to get it? Your numerological value is less about the system, and way more about the thermometers. Where you placed them, how you placed them, how well they function, how their casing is changing (by painting or otherwise), and so on. There might be countless factors involved, all about your thermometers.
| Quote: |
So if the average value is higher than before then one of the two places where I placed the thermometer has to have a higher temperature now.
|
That's false. See above. |
|
|
|
zamuro
1 thumbs up
Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 572
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:31 pm Post subject: |
#91 |
| Quote: |
| Or that one termometer malfunctions. Or it happened that the sunlight reached it. Or maybe the sunlight reached it always (do you know how dumb it is to measure temperature in such a case?) |
I make sure that I use reliable thermometers and that they are not in the sun-light. and as I told before I just measured the temperature so if it went up it did went up. |
|
|
|
Davedebogusone
1 thumbs up
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 1476
Location: Beauklahoma ,peoples republic of Kalifornia
|
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:04 pm Post subject: |
#93 |
Burt is a pilot, and airplane designer/builder, not a climate scientist.
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
Davedebogusone
1 thumbs up
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 1476
Location: Beauklahoma ,peoples republic of Kalifornia
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:07 pm Post subject: |
#94 |
I know that he knows that, and neither are you so your point must be you didnt read any of that for on his take on things huh ? mr journalist ?
 |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:20 pm Post subject: |
#95 |
I saw his stuff ages ago. Why should I go back there again?
Self abuse?
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
Davedebogusone
1 thumbs up
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 1476
Location: Beauklahoma ,peoples republic of Kalifornia
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 5:52 pm Post subject: |
#96 |
Sure you might learn a diffent take on this stuff instead of gulping koolaide,
You dont get funding from folks that arent schooled in this unless you can find what they are willing to pay for , carbon credits is the next ponzi scheme dont cha know.
Brain power needs to be spent only on power/ fuel sources to keep us plugging away after the natural HC's are all used up.
Trying to scare me for a agenda pisses me off. 
And havent you heard CO2 in the US is down
Lowest in 20yrs due to cheap NG ,market works ,government enforced scare tactics not so much.
|
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
|
|
|
Davedebogusone
1 thumbs up
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 1476
Location: Beauklahoma ,peoples republic of Kalifornia
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:29 pm Post subject: |
#98 |
thinkprogress ? 
Isnt that like jumbo shrimp ? 
Thats not one of those pinko progresive web sites is it ? 
 |
|
|
|
davisstraub
1 thumbs up
Joined: 13 Dec 2010
Posts: 1713
Location: Boise, Idaho
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 7:48 pm Post subject: |
#99 |
You don't have to read the article if you feel that it will contaminate you, but it backs up your assertion with a bit more explanation and caution.
_________________
Davis Straub at the Oz Report |
|
|
|
Davedebogusone
1 thumbs up
Joined: 17 Mar 2008
Posts: 1476
Location: Beauklahoma ,peoples republic of Kalifornia
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 8:30 pm Post subject: |
#100 |
assertion ?
I read it recently somewhere 
Just like every time I see some climatologist fudging numbers for fame
If Algore could have seen this coming would he still have created the web ?
Speaking of Egore.
Wonder how his cap and trade fleecing business is doing ? 
I have to wonder what has changed since the 70's when the same scientist proclaimed we were causing the next ice age and no body bought it .
Increase in flouride levels perhaps |
|
|
|
|
Unanswered
Highest rated...
Topics
